Feasibility and potential benefits of partner‐supported yoga on psychosocial and physical function among lung cancer patients

Abstract

Objective Patients with lung cancer experience significant declines in psychosocial and physical function during and after treatment that impact quality of life (QOL) and survival. Yoga is a potential strategy to mitigate functional decline among patients with lung cancer. Methods A single group 12‐week pilot trial of low‐moderate intensity yoga among patients with stage I‐IV lung cancer and their partners (n = 46; 23 patient‐partner dyads) during cancer treatment from two hospital systems. Feasibility, acceptability, descriptive statistics, and Cohen d effect sizes were calculated at 6 and 12‐weeks for psychosocial and physical outcomes using validated questionnaires and assessments. Results At 6 and 12‐weeks, retention was 65% and withdrawals were mainly due to disease progression. Among study completers (n = 26; 13 dyads) adherence was 80%. Comparing baseline to 12‐week measurements, fatigue, depression symptoms, and sleep disturbance improved in 54% of participants for all three measures (Cohen's d = 0.40‒0.53). QOL improved in 77% of participants (Cohen's d = 0.34). Upper and lower body flexibility, and lower body strength improved in 92%, 85% and 77% of participants, respectively (Cohen's d = 0.39‒1.08). Six‐minute walk test improved in 62% of participants an average of 32 meters (SD = 11.3; Cohen's d = 0.17). No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions Among patients with stage I‐IV lung cancer including active treatment, a 12‐week partner‐supported yoga program is feasible, acceptable, and improved psychosocial and physical function. Low‐intensity yoga may be a complimentary approach to reduce the effects of cancer treatment, however, more research is needed to determine the efficacy of partner‐supported yoga to mitigate functional decline.

Effects of dyadic-based physical activity intervention on cancer-related fatigue among cancer survivors: A scoping review

“…Various forms of intervention described in the literature include yoga, ballroom dancing and walking. The most common form of physical activity was yoga (Milbury et al, 2015a , b , 2018 , 2019 ; McDonnell et al, 2020 ; Sullivan et al, 2021 ), which was usually performed under the guidance of a professional yoga instructor and incorporates combined breathing exercises for the chest and abdomen and relaxation techniques for meditation. Ballroom dancing was a two-person, interactive activity that promotes intimacy through physical contact, verbal and non-verbal communication, and physical activity to improve health (Thieser et al, 2021 ).…”

“…Another pilot study showed improvement in CRF in 43% of participants in the experimental group, compared to 50% of participants in the control group (Mazanec et al, 2017 ). In six pre and post-test designs, two of them showed improvement in CRF but the difference was not statistically significant (Milbury et al, 2015b ; Thieser et al, 2021 ), and in addition, one study showed improvement in CRF in 54% of participants (Sullivan et al, 2021 ). Surprisingly, CRF scores raised in 3 studies, but the differences were not statistically significant (Milbury et al, 2015a , 2018 ; McDonnell et al, 2020 ).…”

“…The participants in the three studies were 38, 10, and 23 and lasted from 5 to 45 weeks, with a large variation in the dose of the intervention. In the other 3 studies, CRF rose but none of the differences between groups were statistically significant, with 5, 15, and 26 participants completing the intervention, respectively, and total intervention duration ranging from 720 to 960 min (Milbury et al, 2015a , 2018 ; Sullivan et al, 2021 ). Cancer survivors of these three pre and post-test designs studies showed a slight increase in CRF, which may be strongly related to the drawbacks of the pre and post-test designs.…”

“…In six pre and post-test designs, CRF declined in three intervention survivors, with two of the differences not statistically significant (Milbury et al, 2018 ; Thieser et al, 2021 ) and the other using a percentage approach to report the percentage of people who improved (Sullivan et al, 2021 ). The participants in the three studies were 38, 10, and 23 and lasted from 5 to 45 weeks, with a large variation in the dose of the intervention.…”

“…For dyadic interventions, participant recruitment is a challenge for dyadic-based physical activity interventions (Cheung et al, 2021 ). Seven of the included studies had fewer than (Sullivan et al, 2021 ) participants, and small sample sizes can lead to a lack of robustness of results. Recruitment is one of the main problems faced by the dyadic-based physical activity intervention, and most cancer survivors and partners who met the inclusion criteria declined to participate due to time constraints, as well as lack of interest in these programs, treatment needs, psychological stress, and caregiver burden (Milbury et al, 2015b ; McDonnell et al, 2020 ; Sullivan et al, 2021 ).…”