Physical Behavior Profiles in Chronic Cancer-Related Fatigue

Abstract

PurposeIncreasing physical activity level is a generally effective intervention goal for patients who suffer from chronic cancer-related fatigue (CCRF). However, patients are unlikely to benefit equally from these interventions, as their behavioral starting points might vary substantially. Therefore, we explored patterns of physical behavior of participants who suffer from CCRF.MethodsBaseline data of a randomized controlled trial were used for a latent profile analysis on nine accelerometer-derived physical behavior measures, describing levels and patterns of physical activity, moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA), and sedentary behavior. The relation between participant characteristics and the latent profiles was analyzed.ResultsAccelerometer data of 172 participants from the Netherlands was analyzed. Three latent profiles were distinguished that differed most on physical activity level and total time spent in MVPA. Eighty-eight percent of all participants were assigned to a profile with a probability higher than 8. Age and perceiving limitations by comorbid conditions and pain were significant covariates of profile membership.ConclusionsWe distinguished three physical behavior profiles. The differences between the patterns indicate that the heterogeneity of this sample requires patients to have substantially different treatment goals. Further research should test the applicability of these profiles in clinical practice.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12529-017-9670-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Physical behavior and associations with health outcomes in operable NSCLC patients: A prospective study

“…Some of the patients in our study spent relatively much time in moderate-to-vigorous activity, while at the same time accumulating considerable time in prolonged bouts of sedentary behavior; or vice versa. This supports the notion of individual variability, and emphasizes the need for so-called physical behavior 'profiling' to facilitate tailored goal setting in interventions that target change in physical behavior [14].…”

“…To investigate if preoperative and early postoperative physical behavior relates to health outcomes six months postoperative (t3), first Spearman's correlations were calculated between selected physical behavior measures preoperative and health outcomes at six months postoperative (t3), and between physical behavior measures at one month postoperative (t1) and health outcomes at six months postoperative (t3). To limit the number of tests, we calculated the association between the physical behavior measures PAL, SB, pSB, and MVPA, since their relevance in cancer rehabilitation has previously been reported [14]. Second, for pMVPA, patients were classified into three groups based on the international guidelines for PA in cancer survivors, that is a minimum of 150 min of MVPA per week [6].…”

“…Intensity levels were divided in sedentary behavior (SB), light PA (LIPA) and moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA). Cutoff values for intensity levels were used as described by Wolvers et al [14] (Fig. 1).…”

“…In these studies, PA was represented by a single measure such as number of steps [9,11,12] or overall physical activity level (PAL) [13], while more and more evidence stresses the importance of including other, additional measures that characterize physical behavior more precisely [10,14]. Especially time spent in SB and moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA) and how this time is accumulated are considered clinically relevant, due to their association with health and PROMs in cancer survivors [14]. So far, pre-to postoperative patterns of physical behavior of operable NSCLC patients and their relation to health and PROMs are lacking from literature.…”

Movement behavior profiles and obesity: a latent profile analysis of 24-h time-use composition among Danish workers

“…This is the first study to explore latent movement behavior profiles based on 24-h time-use compositions among a working population. Most similar previous studies (a) have been performed on children and adolescents [33][34][35][36] or (b) did not use 24-h data [37][38][39] or (c) did not use devicebased measures of movement behaviors [37,38]. We found that workers in this study could be divided into four distinct movement behavior profiles, that we named "Chimpanzees", "Lions", "Koalas", and "Ants".…”