Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Physical activity and sleep quality in breast cancer survivors: a randomized trial |
Rogers LQ, Courneya KS, Oster RA, Anton PM, Robbs RS, Forero A, McAuley E |
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2017 Oct;49(10):2009-2015 |
clinical trial |
4/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: No; 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* |
PURPOSE: Data from large randomized controlled trials confirming sleep quality improvements with aerobic physical activity have heretofore been lacking for post-primary treatment breast cancer survivors. Our primary purpose for this report was to determine the effects of a physical activity behavior change intervention, previously reported to significantly increase physical activity behavior, on sleep quality in post-primary treatment breast cancer survivors. METHODS: Post-primary treatment breast cancer survivors (n = 222) were randomized to a 3-month physical activity behavior change intervention (Better Exercise Adherence after Treatment for Cancer (BEAT Cancer)) or usual care. Self-report (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)) and actigraphy (latency and efficiency) sleep outcomes were measured at baseline, 3 months (M3), and 6 months (M6). RESULTS: After adjusting for covariates, BEAT Cancer significantly improved PSQI global sleep quality when compared with usual care at M3 (mean between-group difference (M) -1.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.1 to -0.7, p < 0.001) and M6 (M -1.0, 95% CI -1.7 to -0.2, p = 0.01). BEAT Cancer improved several PSQI subscales at M3 (sleep quality M -0.3, 95% CI -0.4 to -0.1, p = 0.002; sleep disturbances M -0.2, 95% CI -0.3 to -0.03, p = 0.016; daytime dysfunction M -0.2, 95% CI -0.4 to -0.02, p = 0.027) but not M6. A nonsignificant increase in percent of participants classified as good sleepers occurred. No significant between-group difference was noted for accelerometer latency or efficiency. CONCLUSION: A physical activity intervention significantly reduced perceived global sleep dysfunction at 3 and 6 months, primarily because of improvements in sleep quality aspects not detected with accelerometer.
|