For an exercise intervention to be successful, it is important that cancer survivors adhere to the prescribed program. To be able to improve adherence and to preserve achieved beneficial effects, insights into the relevant and modifiable determinants is important. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review determinants of exercise adherence and maintenance in cancer survivors using a socio-ecological approach.Studies were identified in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and SPORTDiscus up to July 2013. We included full-text articles that: 1) were conducted among adult cancer survivors; 2) quantitatively assessed factors associated with intervention adherence and maintenance, and 3) were published in English. The methodological quality of the selected studies was examined. A best evidence synthesis was applied.Eighteen studies were included. Median methodological quality was 53% and ranged from 21-78% of maximum score. Twelve studies focused on determinants of exercise adherence and evaluated 71 potential determinants: 29 demographic and clinical, 27 psychological, ten physical, four social factors, and one environmental factor. Six studies focused on determinants of exercise maintenance after completion of an intervention, and investigated 63 factors: 22 demographic and clinical, 28 psychosocial, nine physical, three social and one environmental factor. We found moderate evidence for a positive association between exercise history and exercise adherence. Inconsistent findings were found for age, gender and education as well as for psychological factors such as stage of change, perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, extraversion, attitude, intention, fatigue, and quality of life, and physical factors including cardiovascular fitness, body mass index, and baseline physical activity.Exercise history is positively associated with exercise adherence. Future trials should further study the influence of social and environmental determinants on exercise adherence and maintenance in addition to demographic, psychological and physical determinants.

BackgroundInternational evidence-based guidelines recommend physical exercise to form part of standard care for all cancer survivors. However, at present, the optimum exercise intensity is unclear. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a high intensity (HI) and low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) resistance and endurance exercise program compared with a wait list control (WLC) group on physical fitness and fatigue in a mixed group of cancer survivors who completed primary cancer treatment, including chemotherapy.MethodsOverall, 277 cancer survivors were randomized to 12 weeks of HI exercise (n = 91), LMI exercise (n = 95), or WLC (n = 91). Both interventions were identical with respect to exercise type, duration and frequency, and only differed in intensity. Measurements were performed at baseline (4–6 weeks after primary treatment) and post-intervention. The primary outcomes were cardiorespiratory fitness (peakVO2), muscle strength (grip strength and 30-second chair-stand test), and self-reported fatigue (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory; MFI). Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, physical activity, daily functioning, body composition, mood, and sleep disturbances. Multilevel linear regression analyses were performed to estimate intervention effects using an intention-to-treat principle.ResultsIn the HI and LMI groups, 74 % and 70 % of the participants attended more than 80 % of the prescribed exercise sessions, respectively (P = 0.53). HI (β = 2.2; 95 % CI, 1.2–3.1) and LMI (β = 1.3; 95 % CI, 0.3–2.3) exercise showed significantly larger improvements in peakVO2 compared to WLC. Improvements in peakVO2 were larger for HI than LMI exercise (β = 0.9; 95 % CI, −0.1 to 1.9), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.08). No intervention effects were found for grip strength and the 30-second chair-stand test. HI and LMI exercise significantly reduced general and physical fatigue and reduced activity (MFI subscales) compared to WLC, with no significant differences between both interventions. Finally, compared to WLC, we found benefits in global quality of life and anxiety after HI exercise, improved physical functioning after HI and LMI exercise, and less problems at work after LMI exercise.ConclusionsShortly after completion of cancer treatment, both HI and LMI exercise were safe and effective. There may be a dose–response relationship between exercise intensity and peakVO2, favoring HI exercise. HI and LMI exercise were equally effective in reducing general and physical fatigue.Trial registrationThis study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Register [NTR2153] on the 5th of January 2010.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was  to identify demographic, clinical, psychosocial, physical and environmental factors that are associated with participation in and adherence to a combined resistance and endurance exercise program among cancer survivors, shortly after completion of primary cancer treatment. Data from the randomized controlled Resistance and Endurance exercise After ChemoTherapy (REACT) study were used for this study.MethodsThe participants of the REACT study were randomly allocated to either a high intensity (HI) or low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) exercise program. Patients’ participation rate was defined as the cancer survivors’ decision to participate in the REACT study. Exercise adherence reflected participants’ attendance to the scheduled exercise sessions and their compliance to the prescribed exercises. High session attendance rates were defined as attending at least 80 % of the sessions. High compliance rates were defined as performing at least of 90 % of the prescribed exercise across all sessions. Correlates of exercise adherence were studied separately for HI and LMI exercise. Demographic, clinical, and physical factors were assessed using self-reported questionnaires. Relevant clinical information was extracted from medical records. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were applied to identify correlates that were significantly associated with participation, high session attendance, high compliance with resistance and high compliance with endurance exercises.ResultsParticipants were more likely to have higher education, be non-smokers, have lower psychological distress, higher outcome expectations, and perceive more exercise barriers than non-participants. In HI exercise, higher self-efficacy was significantly associated with high session attendance and high compliance with endurance exercises, and lower psychological distress was significantly associated with high compliance with resistance exercises. In LMI exercise, being a non-smoker was significantly associated with high compliance with resistance exercises and higher BMI was significantly associated with high compliance with resistance and endurance exercises. Furthermore, breast cancer survivors were less likely to report high compliance with resistance and endurance exercises in LMI exercise compared to survivors of other types of cancer. The discriminative ability of the multivariable models ranged from 0.62 to 0.75.ConclusionSeveral demographic, clinical and psychosocial factors were associated with participation in and adherence to exercise among cancer survivors. Psychosocial factors were more strongly associated with adherence in HI than LMI exercise.Trial registrationThis study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Register [NTR2153] on the 5th of January 2010.

PurposeThis study aimed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of high intensity (HI) versus low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) exercise on physical fitness, fatigue, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in cancer survivors.MethodsTwo hundred seventy-seven cancer survivors participated in the Resistance and Endurance exercise After ChemoTherapy (REACT) study and were randomized to 12 weeks of HI (n = 139) or LMI exercise (n = 138) that had similar exercise types, durations, and frequencies, but different intensities. Measurements were performed at baseline (4–6 weeks after primary treatment), and 12 (i.e., short term) and 64 (i.e., longer term) weeks later. Outcomes included cardiorespiratory fitness, muscle strength, self-reported fatigue, HRQoL, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and societal costs. Linear mixed models were conducted to study (a) differences in effects between HI and LMI exercise at longer term, (b) within-group changes from short term to longer term, and (c) the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective.ResultsAt longer term, intervention effects on role (β = 5.9, 95% CI = 0.5; 11.3) and social functioning (β = 5.7, 95%CI = 1.7; 9.6) were larger for HI compared to those for LMI exercise. No significant between-group differences were found for physical fitness and fatigue. Intervention-induced improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness and HRQoL were maintained between weeks 12 and 64, but not for fatigue. From a societal perspective, the probability that HI was cost-effective compared to LMI exercise was 0.91 at 20,000€/QALY and 0.95 at 52,000€/QALY gained, mostly due to significant lower healthcare costs in HI exrcise.ConclusionsAt longer term, we found larger intervention effects on role and social functioning for HI than for LMI exercise. Furthermore, HI exercise was cost-effective with regard to QALYs compared to LMI exercise.Trial registrationThis study is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register [NTR2153 [http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2153]] on the 5th of January 2010.Implications for Cancer SurvivorsExercise is recommended to be part of standard cancer care, and HI may be preferred over LMI exercise.

Introduction Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is an emerging method to assess an individual's current thoughts, affect, behaviour, physical states and contextual factors as they occur in real‐time and in their natural environment. Whereas EMA is frequently used in mental health, little is known about the added value of EMA in oncology research. This review aimed to synthesise methodological information and results of studies that applied EMA among patients with cancer to inform future researchers about the opportunities and challenges. Methods We included full‐text articles on studies that: (a) were conducted among adult cancer patients; and (b) examined cancer and treatment‐related experiences by EMA. Information from selected studies was synthesised: study designs, EMA data collection methods, response‐related results and main findings. Results Twelve studies were included, which all applied an observational design. The EMA data collection methods varied considerably and the reporting of response‐related results were poor. Nevertheless, EMA was found feasible as no systematic patterns of problems were reported and reported response‐related results were acceptable. Furthermore, EMA was found useful as it facilitated examination of real‐time experiences and behaviour. Conclusion Ecological momentary assessment is useful and feasible in oncology research. Future studies would benefit from guidelines for designing and reporting EMA studies.