Objectives: To determine the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of a group dynamics–based exercise intervention versus a personal training intervention for increasing physical activity (PA), physical fitness, and quality of life (QOL) in post-treatment breast cancer survivors. Sample & Setting: 26 women with stage I or II breast cancer who attended intervention activities at a local academic institution. Methods & Vriables: Participants were randomly assigned to receive an eight-week intervention in either a group dynamics–based exercise or a personal training setting. Both intervention arms received supervised exercise twice per week, as well as PA education and discussion sessions. Results: Significant increases were noted in both intervention arms for vigorous PA, chest press, and leg press. Increases in overall QOL and total PA were significant only in the group dynamics–based exercise intervention arm. Implications for Nursing: The group dynamics–based exercise intervention produced similar improvements in PA and physical fitness compared to the personal training intervention, and it may have facilitated greater improvements in overall QOL.

This study examined the feasibility and effects of a 1-hr physical activity (PA) behavior change (PABC) discussion session on PA, 12 weeks after completing an exercise trial. Adults at high risk of Type II diabetes were randomized to the PABC or a control group. PA was self-reported using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Chi-square tests compared the proportion of participants classified as moderately active or greater at the 12-week follow-up. Participants (N = 50) were M = 61.8 ± 5.5 years old and mostly female (80%). All participants completed the PABC discussion session, and compliance with the International Physical Activity Questionnaire at 12-week follow-up was 78%. Barrier self-efficacy increased immediately following the PABC (MΔ0.5 ± 0.9; t(22) = −2.45, p = .023). At 12-week follow-up, 88% in the PABC were moderately active or greater, compared with 50% in the control (p = .015). Incorporating a PABC discussion session as part of an exercise efficacy trial was feasible and may help improve PA maintenance.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: Exercise is beneficial for individuals who have been diagnosed with cardiovascular disease or cancer. Healthcare providers are well placed to discuss exercise with their patients, but their referral practices and the content of exercise recommendations remain unclear. Method: Cardiologists and oncologists completed an online survey comprising four closed-ended questions and one open-ended question to assess exercise recommendation and referral practices. Chi-square tests were used to compare the frequency of closed-ended responses, and open-ended responses were coded and analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Of the 154 surveys, 58 were returned ( n = 25; 43.1% cardiologists, and n = 33; 56.9% oncologists). Respondents ( Mage = 45.5 ± 11.1) were mostly men (62.1%). The majority of cardiologists (95.8%) and oncologists (78.1%) reported referring patients to hospital-based exercise programmes. In this study, the cardiologists were more likely to refer patients to certified exercise physiologists (χ2(1) = 6.140, p = .021), whereas oncologists were more likely to refer to physical therapists (χ2(1) = 11.764, p = .001). Conclusion: Findings reveal that cardiologists and oncologists discussed and recommended exercise to their patients at least some or most of the time; there were differences in the type of exercise professionals they were referred to; and exercise recommendations were variable and infrequently concurred with established guidelines.