Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Feasibility and acceptability of a Tai Chi Chih randomized controlled trial in senior female cancer survivors |
Campo RA, O'Connor K, Light KC, Nakamura Y, Lipschitz DL, LaStayo PC, Pappas L, Boucher K, Irwin MR, Agarwal N, Kinney AY |
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2013 Nov;12(6):464-474 |
clinical trial |
6/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a Tai Chi Chih (TCC) intervention in senior female cancer survivors with physical functioning limitations, and its effects on health-related quality of life (QOL). DESIGN: This was a two-armed, parallel group, RCT with 12-weeks of Tai Chi Chih or health education control. METHOD: Sixty-three senior (mean age 67 years, SD 7.15) female cancer survivors (83% breast cancer, stages I to III) with physical functioning limitations (SF-12 Health Survey role-physical and physical functioning subscales) were randomized to 12-weeks of TCC or health education control (HEC). Primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptability. Secondary outcomes included health-related QOL (SF-36 Health Survey), and participants' qualitative feedback on the intervention. RESULT: Retention (TCC 91%; HEC 81%) and class attendance (TCC 79%; HEC 83%) rates, and satisfaction levels for both study arms were high, but did not significantly differ from one another. At one-week post-intervention, none of the SF-36 scores differed between the TCC and HEC groups. Within-group analyses revealed significant improvements in the mental component summary score in TCC (p = 0.01), but not in HEC. Qualitative analyses indicated that the TCC group felt they received mental and physical benefits, whereas HEC group reported on social support benefits and information received. CONCLUSION: The TCC intervention was found to be a feasible and acceptable modality for senior female cancer survivors. Future, larger definitive trials are needed to clarify TCC dosage effects on QOL in this vulnerable population.
|