Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Motivational interviewing added to oncology rehabilitation did not improve moderate-intensity physical activity in cancer survivors: a randomised trial |
Dennett AM, Shields N, Peiris CL, Prendergast LA, O'Halloran PD, Parente P, Taylor NF |
Journal of Physiotherapy 2018 Oct;64(4):255-263 |
clinical trial |
8/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
QUESTION: Does adding weekly, physiotherapist-delivered motivational interviewing to outpatient oncology rehabilitation for cancer survivors increase physical activity levels and improve physical and psychosocial outcomes that are typically impaired in this cohort? DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment, concealed allocation and intention-to-treat analysis. PARTICIPANTS: A heterogeneous sample of 46 cancer survivors (n = 29 female; mean age 59 years) participating in a public outpatient oncology rehabilitation program. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly allocated to receive oncology rehabilitation (n = 24) or oncology rehabilitation with motivational interviewing delivered once weekly for 7 weeks via telephone by a physiotherapist (n = 22). OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was amount of physical activity of at least moderate intensity completed in 10-minute bouts, measured by an accelerometer worn continuously for 1 week. Secondary outcomes included other measures of physical activity, sedentary behaviour, physical function, psychosocial function, and quality of life. RESULTS: When added to oncology rehabilitation, motivational interviewing caused no appreciable increase in the amount of moderate-intensity physical activity (MD -1.2 minutes/day, 95% CI -2.5 to 0.02). Among many secondary outcomes, the only statistically significant result was a small effect on nausea, which probably represents a Type I error. However, several secondary outcomes related to lower-intensity physical activity had non-significant confidence intervals that included large effects such as: sedentary time (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.32 to 0.02), light-intensity physical activity (SMD 0.56, 95% CI -0.12 to 1.21) and daily step count (SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.30 to 1.02). CONCLUSION: Adding motivational interviewing to oncology rehabilitation did not increase moderate-intensity physical activity. Favourable trends on measures of lower-intensity physical activity suggest that motivational interviewing should be further investigated for its effects on reducing sedentary time and improving light-intensity physical activity for cancer survivors participating in rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR 12616001079437.
|