Skip to main content

Table 2 Intervention characteristics

From: Systematic review and meta-analysis of maintenance of physical activity behaviour change in cancer survivors

Authors and country Theoretical bases PA intervention only Supervised exercise Intervention provider Number of contacts Setting and mode of delivery Length of intervention Length of follow-up Control group instructions Fidelity assessment Recruitment rates Drop out post-intervention follow up
Very promising – Significant between group difference
a Mutrie et al. 2012 [55]
UK
SCT and TTM Y Y Specifically trained exercise specialists 24 Group supervised exercise classes and home-based exercise with referral to GP exercise scheme 3 m 5 yrs Printed recommendations. After 6 months offered personal ex plan and GP exercise scheme referral N 1144/203 (18%) Control = 59 (58%)
Int = 57 (56%)
Pinto et al. 2008 [46] USA TTM Y N Researchers conducted phone calls 15 Telephone delivered home-based 6 m 9 m Contact control - Cancer survivorship tip sheets (not PA related). Telephone calls as per intervention group to monitor symptoms N Cannot be calculated Control = 4 (9.3%)
Int =4 (9.3%)
Rogers et al. 2015 [57]
USA
SCT Y Y Exercise specialists and group facilitators trained by clinical psychologist 21 Supervised exercise sessions, counselling and group discussions. Home-based exercise encouraged 3 m 12 m Usual care plus ACS written materials on PA recommendations Y Cannot be calculated Control = 2 (3.6%)
Int = 5 (4.5%)
Rogers et al. 2009 [37]
Canada
SCT Y Y Exercise specialist and clinical psychologist 21 Supervised exercise sessions and group discussion with home-based exercise encourage 3 m 6 m Usual care plus ACS written materials on PA recommendations Y Cannot be calculated Control = 3 (15%)
Int = 2 (9.5%)
Belanger et al. 2014 [40]
Canada
TPB Y N - 0 Printed 11 chapter guidebook to promoted PA tailored to young adults 0 m 4 m Non tailored print materials, 1 page handout 212/1908 (11%) Control = 65 (61.3%)
Int = 63 (59.4%)
Pinto et al. 2015 [68]
USA
TTM and SCT Y N Peer volunteers (with training) 16 Peer-led telephone consultation and mailed feedback reports 3 m 6 m Contact control N 76/291 (26%) Control = 6 (16%)
Int = 3 (7.7%)
Pinto et al. 2013 [56]
USA
TTM and SCT Y N No details provided 24 Health care professional advice plus telephone counselling plus printed materials 6 m 12 m Health care professional advice plus contact control Y 192/270 (71%) Control = 5 (20.8%)
Int = 6 (9.4%)
Dhillon et al. 2017 [69]
Australia
TPB Y Y Physical activity consultant 8 Weekly exercise sessions – home-based exercise was encouraged 2 m 6 m Diet and PA education materials N 112/254 (44%) Control = 28 (50.9%) Int = 21 (37.5%)
Baumann et al. 2017 [70]
Germany
None Y Y Insufficient details Residential rehab program with telephone follow-up 8 m 24 m 3 week rehab program but not FU care N No data provided NP
Hawkes et al. 2013 [39]
Australia
ACT N N Health coaches with degrees in nursing, psychology or health promotion 15 Telephone counselling and printed materials 6 m 12 m Generic printed materials promoting PA Y 410/792 (52%) Control = 42 (20.5%)
Int = 44 (22.4%)
Kanera et al., 2017 [54]
Netherlands
Intervention component derived from SCT, TPB, self-regulation theory and Integrated Model for Change N N - NR Web-based lifestyle intervention 6 m 12 m Waitlist control N 518/1298 (40%) Control = 19 (9.0)
Int = 62 (36.7%)
Witlox et al., 2018 [48]
Netherlands
SCT Y Y Physiotherapist 36 Supervised and home-based physical activity 18wk 4 yr Usual care but access to publically available programs after 18wks N 237/503 (47%) 50.8% n = 60 control
41.2% n = 49 int
Quite promising - Significant within-group difference baseline to post-intervention follow up
Demark-Wahnefried et al. 2012 [38]
USA
SCT and TTM N N Counsellors (no detail on training/expertise) 23 Personally tailored workbook, newsletters and telephone counselling 10 m 2 yrs Waitlist control N 641/20015 (3%) Control = 77 (23.9%)
Int = 76 (23.8%)
Ottenbacher et al. 2012 [44]
USA
SCT N N - 14 Tailored printed materials 10 m 2 yrs Attention control – non tailored printed materials including promotion of PA ■ – 543/1570 (44%) Control = 16 (6.5%)
Int = 28 (14.1%)
Vallance et al. 2007 [52]
Canada
No data provided Y N No details provided 2 Recommendation to exercise, printed materials and pedometer 3 m 6 m Recommendation to exercise N 398/1590 (25%) Control = 28 (29.2%)
Int = 26 (27.9%)
Pinto et al. 2013 [45]
USA
TTM and SCT Y N Counsellors received training on theoretical basis 19 Telephone delivered home-based with printed materials 6 m 12 m Contact control - Cancer survivorship tip sheets (not PA related). Telephone calls as per intervention group to monitor symptoms Y 46/168 (27%) Control = 3 (12%)
Int = 1 (5%)
Leclerc et al. 2018 [71]
Belgium
None described Y Y Physiotherpaists and professor of physiotherapy and rehabilitation 36 Supervised group exercise and education 3 m 24 m Control group – asked not to change exercise behaviour for the entire follow-up period N Cannot be calculated Control = 55 (51.9%)
Int = 53 (51.5%)
Mayer et al. 2018 [72]
USA
SDT Y N Smartphone App 6 m 9 m Control Group – National Cancer Institute’s Facing Forward: Life after Cancer Treatment booklet and National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship’s Cancer Survival Toolbox + pedometer 284/465 (61%) Data not reported at 9 m
bLee et al. 2018 [50]
Hong Kong
TPB and Health Action Process Approach N N No details provided 32 Printed materials with motivational phone calls newsletters and group meetings 12 m 24 m Usual care N Cannot be calculated Control groups = 18 (16%)
Int groups = 16 (14%)
Adams et al. 2018 [42]
Canada
None described Y Y No details provided 36 Supervised high intensity exercise sessions 3 m 6 m Usual care – offered 6 week exercise training after final follow-up N 7% of potentially eligible patient (63/948) Control group = 5 (18%)
Int groups 6 (17%)
Stolley et al. 2017 [73]
USA
Grounded in a socioecological model N Y Study trained community nutritionist and exercise trainer 48 Supervised Group exercise and education classes 6 m 12 m Self-guided weight management intervention – printed materials only N 246/448 (55%) Control = 21 (17%)
Int = 18 (14%)
Not promising - No between or within group differences
Galvo et al. 2017 [53]
Australia
None described Y N Trained peer support workers 6 Self-management materials and telephone-based group peer support 6 m 12 m Published patient education materials N 463/1314 (32%) Control = 37 (19.1%)
Int = 47 (25.5%)
Nyrop et al. 2017 [41]
USA
None described Y N - 1 Workbook and home-based walking 6 wks 6 m Waitlist control 78/344 (23%) N = 21 (33.9%) whole sample
Carmack et al. 2006 [51]
USA
SCT and TTM Y N Group facilitators, supervised by clinical psychologist 20 Group counselling, home-based exercise encouraged 6 m 12 m Standard care Y Cannot be calculated Control = 3 (8.1)
Int = 11 (23.9%)
Education control = 7 (13.7%)
James et al. 2015 [43]
Australia c
SCT N Y Exercise physiologist 6 Group sessions and workbook 8wk 20wks Waitlist control N - -
O’Neill et al. 2018 [49]
Ireland
Non described N Y A multidisciplinary team 14 Supervised and home-based exercise with education 3 m 6 m Usual care N 43/264 = 16% Control = 1 (5%)
Int = 2 (9%)
Sandler et al. 2017 [47]
Australia
CBT N N Exercise physiologist and clinical psychologist 5 Manualised exercise programme with face-to-face consultations 3 m 6 m Education package and 1 face-to-face meeting with exercise professionals N 55/46 = 84% Control = 2 (8%)
Int = 4 (18%)
  1. aUsed linked texts to extract some intervention characteristics b Study included 4 groups, comparison group classed as usual care or diet intervention only, intervention group = PA only or PA plus diet c attrition data not available as presented for both cancer patients and carers, TTM Transtheoretical Model, SCT Social Cognitive Theory, CBP Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, SDT Self-Determination Theory, ACT Acceptance Commitment Therapy, TBP Theory of Planned Behaviour