Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Perceived barriers and preferred components for physical activity interventions in African-American survivors of breast or endometrial cancer with type 2 diabetes: the S.U.C.C.E.S.S. framework

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

African-American (AA) female cancer survivors share a disproportionate burden of diabetes compared to their white counterparts. Our objectives were to explore the perspectives of AA survivors with type 2 diabetes on perceived barriers to physical activity (PA) and preferences for a PA intervention and develop a framework for a PA program after cancer treatment.

Methods

Trained interviewers conducted semi-structured interviews with AA survivors of breast or endometrial cancer with diabetes (total n = 20; 16 breast, 4 endometrial). Thirteen open-ended questions were posed to stimulate discussions, which were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two investigators independently reviewed transcriptions and extracted coded quotations to identify major themes.

Results

Median age of participants was 63 years. Nine themes were identified that focused on post-treatment physical symptoms (e.g., lymphedema, bone/joint pain, depression symptoms and self-motivation as barriers to PA, exercise routines tailored to physical limitations and peer partners and program leaders who understand their emotional health needs). The S.U.C.C.E.S.S. framework summarizes the survivors’ preferences for an effective lifestyle intervention: Support efforts to maintain PA, Understand physical and depression symptoms, Collaborate with multi-disciplinary provider, Coordinate in-person intervention activities, Encourage partnerships among survivors for comorbidity risk reduction, develop Sustainable coping strategies for side effects of treatment, and Share local community resources.

Conclusions

Survivors verbalized the need for a multi-disciplinary team to assist with their psychosocial needs and physical limitations to achieve their PA goals, as integrated into the S.U.C.C.E.S.S. framework.

Implications for cancer survivors

The S.U.C.C.E.S.S. framework reflects the perspectives of survivors with type 2 diabetes and may help to inform post-treatment programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM (2013) Prevalence of obesity among adults: United States, 2011–2012. NCHS Data Brief:1–8

  2. Tammemagi CM, Nerenz D, Neslund-Dudas C, Feldkamp C, Nathanson D (2005) Comorbidity and survival disparities among black and white patients with breast cancer. JAMA 294:1765–1772

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Stava CJ, Beck ML, Feng L, Lopez A, Busaidy N, Vassilopoulou-Sellin R (2007) Diabetes mellitus among cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv 1:108–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beckles GLA, Thompson-Reid PE. Diabetes and women’s health across the life stages: a public health perspective. Atlanta, GA; 2001

  5. Giovannucci E, Harlan DM, Archer MC, Bergenstal RM, Gapstur SM, Habel LA et al (2010) Diabetes and cancer: a consensus report. Diabetes Care 33:1674–1685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data and statistics: physical activity. 2010

  7. McTiernan A, Irwin M, Vongruenigen V (2010) Weight, physical activity, diet, and prognosis in breast and gynecologic cancers. J Clin Oncol 28:4074–4080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chlebowski RT, Aiello E, McTiernan A (2002) Weight loss in breast cancer patient management. J Clin Oncol 20:1128–1143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kulik NL, Fisher EB, Ward DS, Ennett ST, Bowling JM, Tate DF (2014) Peer support enhanced social support in adolescent females during weight loss. Am J Health Behav 38:789–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2016. Atlanta, GA; 2016

  11. Mohamadi S, Tate DJ, Vakurov A, Nelson A (2014) Electrochemical screening of biomembrane-active compounds in water. Anal Chim Acta 813:83–89

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Smits A, Lopes A, Das N, Bekkers R, Galaal K (2014) The impact of BMI on quality of life in obese endometrial cancer survivors: does size matter? Gynecol Oncol 132:137–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ward KK, Shah NR, Saenz CC, McHale MT, Alvarez EA, Plaxe SC (2012) Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among endometrial cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol 126:176–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ballard-Barbash R, Friedenreich CM, Courneya KS, Siddiqi SM, McTiernan A, Alfano CM (2012) Physical activity, biomarkers, and disease outcomes in cancer survivors: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 104:815–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Löf M, Bergström K, Weiderpass E (2012) Physical activity and biomarkers in breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. Maturitas 73:134–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rock CL, Doyle C, Demark-Wahnefried W, Meyerhardt J, Courneya KS, Schwartz AL et al (2012) Nutrition and physical activity guidelines for cancer survivors. CA Cancer J Clin 62:243–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Clark H, Ko EM, Kernodle A, Harris A, Moore DT, Gehrig PA, Bae-Jump V (2016) Endometrial cancer survivors’ perspectives on obesity counseling: are we seizing the moment? Int J Gynecol Cancer 26:318–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Joseph RP, Ainsworth BE, Keller C, Dodgson JE (2015) Barriers to physical activity among African American women: an integrative review of the literature. Women Health 55:679–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K (1988) An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q 15:351–377

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Carolina Data Warehouse for Health (CDW-H); University of North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute. https://tracs.unc.edu/index.php/services/biomedical-informatics/cdw-h. Accessed 28 July 2017

  21. The UNC Health registry/cancer survivorship cohort https://tracs.unc.edu/index.php/services/biomedical-informatics/cdw-h (last accessed January 2 2017). No title

  22. Miles MBM, Huberman AM, Saldaña J (2014) Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook, 3rd edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  23. Strauss AL, Corbin JM (2007) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 3rd edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  24. Conlon BA, Kahan M, Martinez M, Isaac K, Rossi A, Skyhart R et al (2015) Development and evaluation of the curriculum for BOLD (Bronx oncology living daily) healthy living: a diabetes prevention and control program for underserved cancer survivors. J Cancer Educ 30:535–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jernigan AM, Al T, FA SAJ (2013) Obesity management in gynecologic cancer survivors: provider practices and attitudes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 208:e1–e8

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Drive, Campus Box #7440, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7440, USA

    Kristin Z. Black

  2. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Old Clinic Building 3027, Campus Box #7570, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7570, USA

    La-Shell Johnson

  3. Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Old Clinic Building 3027, Campus Box #7570, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7570, USA

    La-Shell Johnson

  4. Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Drive, Campus Box #7426, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7426, USA

    Carmen D. Samuel-Hodge

  5. Division of Public Health, Cancer Prevention and Control Branch, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, 100 Dickens Court #4, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514, USA

    Lavanya Gupta

  6. Patient-Centered Program on Women’s Endocrine and Reproductive Health (PoWER), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1700 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Chapel Hill, NC, 27517, USA

    Aditi Sundaresan

  7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Center for Women’s Health Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 3027 Old Clinic Building, Campus Box #7570, Chapel Hill, NC, 28599, USA

    Wanda K. Nicholson

Authors
  1. Kristin Z. Black
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. La-Shell Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carmen D. Samuel-Hodge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lavanya Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Aditi Sundaresan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wanda K. Nicholson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wanda K. Nicholson.

Ethics declarations

Funding

Dr. Nicholson was funded in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK P30DK093002) and the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (1P50H502341801).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in our study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Institutional Review Board (#15-0162) approved the study.

Informed consent

Written or verbal informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Black, K.Z., Johnson, LS., Samuel-Hodge, C.D. et al. Perceived barriers and preferred components for physical activity interventions in African-American survivors of breast or endometrial cancer with type 2 diabetes: the S.U.C.C.E.S.S. framework. Support Care Cancer 26, 231–240 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3839-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3839-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation