التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
Comparing the efficacy of a multi-dimensional breast cancer rehabilitation programme versus a home-based exercise programme during adjuvant cancer treatment. |
| المؤلفون: |
Chandran, Gobinathan, Ning Tang, Poh Ngo, Ednajoy Lay, Serene Huang, ShukIn Tong, Jie Xin Ong, Chew, Efe |
| المصدر: |
BMC Cancer; 3/21/2024, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p1-10, 10p, 1 Diagram, 5 Charts, 5 Graphs |
| مستخلص: |
Background Breast cancer is the most common female malignancy worldwide and a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Exercise during adjuvant treatment improves function and relieves symptoms in breast cancer survivors. However, it is unclear if an unsupervised exercise programme may be as effective as a supervised multimodal group. We investigated the feasibility and efficacy of a centre-based multidimensional rehabilitation (MDR) programme for breast cancer survivors undergoing adjuvant treatment and compared it to an unsupervised home-based exercise (HE) programme. Methods Participants were self-allocated to either MDR or HE group. MDR participants underwent 24 supervised exercise classes and 10 education classes over 12 weeks. HE participants were instructed on a home exercise regime. Outcome measures, including the 6-min walk test (6MWT) and Frenchay Activities Index (FAI), FACT-Cognitive Function scale, and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30, were conducted at baseline (W0), post-intervention (W12) and 6-months post-intervention (M6). Variance between time points and the 2 groups were analysed using a linear mixed model (unstructured covariance matrix) and adjusted with Bonferroni. Result Twenty-five participants attended at least half of the MDR interventions, while 21 completed the HE interventions. The former showed significant improvement in 6MWT, from 406.88 m (W0) to 443.34 m (W12) to 452.81 m (M6), while the improvement in the HE group was not significant (407.67 m (W0) to 433.14 m (W12) to 430.96 m (M6)). Both groups showed a significant improvement in FAI, with earlier significant improvement noted at W12 in the MDR group (22.71 (W0) to 27.65 (W12) to 28.81 (M6)) compared to the HE group (23.16 (W0) to 26.47 (W12) to 29.85 (M6)). Dropout rate was 16% in the MDR group and 34% in HE group. Overall satisfaction with the MDR programme was high. Conclusion Both MDR and HE programmes were feasible. MDR was superior in improving endurance and earlier return to instrumental activities for those who completed at least half of the sessions. Future studies could explore use of technology to improve adherence to exercise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of BMC Cancer is the property of BioMed Central and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
Complementary Index |
Find this article in full text from Springer Verlag. 
Full Text Finder