A meta-analysis of exercise interventions among people treated for cancer
- 951 Downloads
This review applied meta-analytic procedures to integrate primary research findings that tested exercise interventions among people treated for cancer.
Extensive literature searching strategies located published and unpublished intervention studies that tested exercise interventions with at least five participants (k=30). Primary study results were coded. Meta-analytic procedures were conducted.
The overall weighted mean effect size (ES) for two-group comparisons was 0.52 (higher mean for treatment than control) for physical function, 0.35 for symptoms other than fatigue, and 0.27 for body composition. More modest positive ESs were documented for mood (0.19), quality of life (0.14), fatigue (0.11), and exercise behavior (0.04). ESs were larger among single-group pre–post design studies. ESs among control group participants were typically negative and not (statistically) significantly different from 0.
Exercise interventions resulted in small positive effects on health and well-being outcomes among existing studies. Future research should examine intervention-specific characteristics that result in optimal results, such as dose.
KeywordsExercise Cancer Meta-analysis
Financial support provided by a grant from the NIH NINR (RO1NR07870) to Vicki Conn, principal investigator.
- 25.*Durak E, Lilly PC (1999) Preliminary results of exercise in breast cancer: a two-year follow-up survey. J Rehabil Outcomes Meas 3(4):53–60Google Scholar
- 26.*Durak EP, Lilly PC, Hackworth JL (1999) Physical and psychosocial responses to exercise in cancer patients: a two year follow-up survey with prostrate, leukemia, and general carcinoma. J Exerc Physiol Online 2(1)Google Scholar
- 30.Gleser LJ, Olkin I (1994) Stochastically dependent effect sizes. In: Cooper H, Hedges L (eds) The handbook of research synthesis. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp 339–355Google Scholar
- 33.Hedges L (1994) Fixed effects models. In: Cooper H, Hedges L (eds) The handbook of research synthesis. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp 285–299Google Scholar
- 34.Hedges L, Olkin I (1985) Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
- 37.Holtzman J, Schmitz K, Babes G, Kane R, Duval S, Wilt T, MacDonald R, Rutks I (2004) Effectiveness of behavioral interventions to modify physical activity behaviors in general populations and cancer patients and survivors (evidence report/technology assessment no. 102 no. AHRQ publication no. 04-E027-02). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, RockvilleGoogle Scholar
- 40.Kolden GG, Strauman TJ, Ward A, Kuta J, Woods TE, Schneider KL, Heerey E, Sanborn L, Burt C, Millbrandt L, Kalin NH, Stewart JA, Mullen B (2002) A pilot study of group exercise training (GET) for women with primary breast cancer: feasibility and health benefits. Psychooncology 11(5):447–456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 56.Raudenbush SW (1994) Random effects models. In: Cooper H, Hedges L (eds) The handbook of research synthesis. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp 301–321Google Scholar
- 63.Shadish W, Haddock C (1994) Combining estimates of effect size. In: Cooper H, Hedges L (eds) The handbook of research synthesis. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp 261–282Google Scholar