了解针对癌症患者的个性化运动处方:系统综述

Brent Cunningham, Jamie E Chong, Ciaran Fariman, Tina Skinner, Grace Rose
{"title":"了解针对癌症患者的个性化运动处方:系统综述","authors":"Brent Cunningham, Jamie E Chong, Ciaran Fariman, Tina Skinner, Grace Rose","doi":"10.31189/2165-7629-13-s2.337","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n The importance of prescribing individualized exercise for people with cancer to minimize injury risk and optimize outcomes has been echoed internationally in position and consensus statements. However, it is unclear what individualization processes are employed in exercise oncology research and how exercise individualisation is implemented for people with cancer. This study aimed to systematically review the available evidence to elucidate the individualisation methods being employed in exercise oncology research.\n \n \n \n A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled trials (CT), pre-post trials, and comparison trials included men and women aged ≥18 years with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of cancer; undertaking any structured exercise protocol that was ‘individualized’, with or without supervision; and that explored outcomes of intervention fidelity (e.g., recruitment, attendance, adherence, attrition), and/or patient health and wellbeing (i.e., quality of life, symptom improvement, medication use, physical activity). Study quality was assessed using the Delphi list tool.\n \n \n \n Forty-nine studies were found to be eligible and subsequently included in the narrative synthesis. Study quality was on average 49% (range 14 to 100%). Individualization of the exercise prescription most occurred prior to intervention commencement (n=23, 47%), based on physiological results from baseline assessments (n=21, 43%). No study individualized exercise based on participant readiness to train. The exercise prescription was predominantly individualized via modulation of both the intensity and volume of exercise (11, 22%).\n \n \n \n Exercise prescription individualization for people with cancer is highly prescriptive and predetermined. Seldom has exercise prescription been individualized based on participant readiness to train. Future exercise oncology studies should include greater detail on the reporting of exercise individualization methods and rationale to enhance our understanding of the relationship between individualization and exercise adherence and attrition in people with cancer.\n","PeriodicalId":92070,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical exercise physiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"UNDERSTANDING THE INDIVIDUALIZATION OF EXERCISE PRESCRIPTION FOR PEOPLE WITH CANCER: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW\",\"authors\":\"Brent Cunningham, Jamie E Chong, Ciaran Fariman, Tina Skinner, Grace Rose\",\"doi\":\"10.31189/2165-7629-13-s2.337\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n The importance of prescribing individualized exercise for people with cancer to minimize injury risk and optimize outcomes has been echoed internationally in position and consensus statements. However, it is unclear what individualization processes are employed in exercise oncology research and how exercise individualisation is implemented for people with cancer. This study aimed to systematically review the available evidence to elucidate the individualisation methods being employed in exercise oncology research.\\n \\n \\n \\n A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled trials (CT), pre-post trials, and comparison trials included men and women aged ≥18 years with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of cancer; undertaking any structured exercise protocol that was ‘individualized’, with or without supervision; and that explored outcomes of intervention fidelity (e.g., recruitment, attendance, adherence, attrition), and/or patient health and wellbeing (i.e., quality of life, symptom improvement, medication use, physical activity). Study quality was assessed using the Delphi list tool.\\n \\n \\n \\n Forty-nine studies were found to be eligible and subsequently included in the narrative synthesis. Study quality was on average 49% (range 14 to 100%). Individualization of the exercise prescription most occurred prior to intervention commencement (n=23, 47%), based on physiological results from baseline assessments (n=21, 43%). No study individualized exercise based on participant readiness to train. The exercise prescription was predominantly individualized via modulation of both the intensity and volume of exercise (11, 22%).\\n \\n \\n \\n Exercise prescription individualization for people with cancer is highly prescriptive and predetermined. Seldom has exercise prescription been individualized based on participant readiness to train. Future exercise oncology studies should include greater detail on the reporting of exercise individualization methods and rationale to enhance our understanding of the relationship between individualization and exercise adherence and attrition in people with cancer.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":92070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical exercise physiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical exercise physiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31189/2165-7629-13-s2.337\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical exercise physiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31189/2165-7629-13-s2.337","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

国际上的立场和共识声明都强调了为癌症患者开具个性化运动处方的重要性,以最大限度地降低受伤风险并优化治疗效果。然而,目前尚不清楚在肿瘤运动研究中采用了哪些个体化程序,以及如何对癌症患者实施运动个体化。本研究旨在系统回顾现有证据,以阐明肿瘤运动研究中采用的个体化方法。 我们按照 PRISMA 指南对 PubMed、EMBASE、CINAHL 和 Web of Science 进行了系统性检索。符合条件的随机对照试验 (RCT)、对照试验 (CT)、前后试验和对比试验包括年龄≥18 岁、经组织学确诊为癌症的男性和女性;正在进行任何 "个性化 "的结构化锻炼方案,无论是否有监督;并探讨了干预忠实性的结果(如招募、出勤、坚持、减员)和/或患者的健康和福祉(即生活质量、症状改善、药物使用、体育锻炼)。研究质量采用德尔菲列表工具进行评估。 结果发现有 49 项研究符合条件,随后将其纳入叙述性综述。研究质量平均为 49%(范围从 14% 到 100% 不等)。运动处方的个性化大多发生在干预开始之前(23 项,占 47%),基于基线评估的生理结果(21 项,占 43%)。没有一项研究根据参与者的训练准备情况进行个性化运动。运动处方主要通过调节运动强度和运动量来实现个性化(11 项,22%)。 针对癌症患者的个性化运动处方具有很强的规定性和预设性。很少有运动处方是根据参与者的训练准备程度进行个性化的。未来的肿瘤运动研究应更详细地报告运动个体化的方法和原理,以加深我们对癌症患者运动个体化与运动坚持和流失之间关系的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
UNDERSTANDING THE INDIVIDUALIZATION OF EXERCISE PRESCRIPTION FOR PEOPLE WITH CANCER: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
The importance of prescribing individualized exercise for people with cancer to minimize injury risk and optimize outcomes has been echoed internationally in position and consensus statements. However, it is unclear what individualization processes are employed in exercise oncology research and how exercise individualisation is implemented for people with cancer. This study aimed to systematically review the available evidence to elucidate the individualisation methods being employed in exercise oncology research. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled trials (CT), pre-post trials, and comparison trials included men and women aged ≥18 years with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of cancer; undertaking any structured exercise protocol that was ‘individualized’, with or without supervision; and that explored outcomes of intervention fidelity (e.g., recruitment, attendance, adherence, attrition), and/or patient health and wellbeing (i.e., quality of life, symptom improvement, medication use, physical activity). Study quality was assessed using the Delphi list tool. Forty-nine studies were found to be eligible and subsequently included in the narrative synthesis. Study quality was on average 49% (range 14 to 100%). Individualization of the exercise prescription most occurred prior to intervention commencement (n=23, 47%), based on physiological results from baseline assessments (n=21, 43%). No study individualized exercise based on participant readiness to train. The exercise prescription was predominantly individualized via modulation of both the intensity and volume of exercise (11, 22%). Exercise prescription individualization for people with cancer is highly prescriptive and predetermined. Seldom has exercise prescription been individualized based on participant readiness to train. Future exercise oncology studies should include greater detail on the reporting of exercise individualization methods and rationale to enhance our understanding of the relationship between individualization and exercise adherence and attrition in people with cancer.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effects of 12 Months of Kettlebell Training on an Individual with Myasthenia Gravis Effective Manuscript Writing: A Learned Process Cardiorespiratory Effects of Tai Chi Versus Walking: Exploratory Data from the LEAP Trial Stroke, Step Count, and Alzheimer’s ECG Characteristics of Young High School Athletes in Northwest Florida
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1