Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 25, Issue 10, pp 2993–2996 | Cite as

The role of the built environment in a randomized controlled trial to increase physical activity among men with prostate cancer: the PROMOTE trial

  • Erin L. McGowanEmail author
  • Daniel Fuller
  • Nicoleta Cutumisu
  • Scott North
  • Kerry S. Courneya
Commentary

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to examine the association between the built environment and physical activity (PA) in prostate cancer survivors (PCS), as well as whether built environment factors (walkability, count of sports complexes) were effect modifiers of a PA intervention.

Methods

Our study included 165 PCS residing in Edmonton, Alberta, from the PROMOTE trial. The PROMOTE trial was a randomized controlled trial of a behaviour change intervention to increase PA and quality of life in PCS. In the PROMOTE trial, 423 PCS were randomly assigned to a standard physical activity recommendation, self-administered implementation intention, or telephone-assisted implementation intention group. PA and quality of life outcomes were assessed at baseline, 1, and 3 months. To explore the role of the built environment, this study examined walkability and count of sport complexes.

Results

Linear regression analyses revealed that the self-administered intervention group had an increase in self-reported PA minutes/week (β = 133.4, 95% CI = −18.9 to 285.6); however, none of the built environment variables were found to be significantly associated with PA. The logistic regression showed that the self-administered intervention group had a significantly greater likelihood of meeting the PA guidelines (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 0.9 to 4.9), though no built environment variables were associated with PA levels.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that the built environment was not associated with PA and was not an effect modifier in a PA behaviour change intervention for PCS. Further research is needed before clear conclusions can be generated (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01410656).

Keywords

Prostate cancer Physical activity Built environment Intervention 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by a University of Alberta Killam Research Fund Cornerstone Grant. Erin McGowan was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (grant no. 700019). Kerry S. Courneya and Daniel Fuller are supported by the Canada Research Chairs Program. We would like to thank Carol Russell and Lorraine Cormier from the Alberta Cancer Registry for their assistance in conducting this study (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01410656).

Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Blanchard CM, Courneya KS, Stein K (2008) Cancer survivors’ adherence to lifestyle behavior recommendations and associations with health-related quality of life: results from the American Cancer Society’s SCS-II. J Clin Oncol 26:2198–2204. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.6217 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Neil SE, Gotay CC, Campbell KL (2014) Physical activity levels of cancer survivors in Canada: findings from the Canadian Community Health Survey. J cancer Surviv 8:143–149. doi: 10.1007/s11764-013-0322-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McCormack GR, Shiell A (2011) In search of causality: a systematic review of the relationship between the built environment and physical activity among adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 8:125. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-125 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferdinand A, Sen B, Rahurkar S, Engler S, Menachemi N (2012) The relationship between built environments and physical activity: a systematic review. Am J Public Health 102:e7–e13. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300740 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Renalds A, Smith T, Hale P, Patty FJ (2010) A systematic review of built environment and health. Fam Community Health 33:68–78. doi: 10.1097/FCH.0b013e3181c4e2e5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oakes JM (2014) Invited commentary: repeated measures, selection bias, and effect identification in neighborhood effect studies. Am J Epidemiol 180:785–787. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwu231 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trinh L, Larsen K, Faulkner GE, Plotnikoff RC, Rhodes RE, North S, Courneya KS (2016) Social-ecological correlates of physical activity in kidney cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv 10:164–175. doi: 10.1007/s11764-015-0462-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lawrence LM, Stone MR, Rainham DG, Keats MR (2017) Environments associated with moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and sedentary behavior of colorectal cancer survivors. Int J Beha Med 24:120–126. doi: 10.1007/s12529-016-9575-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McGowan EL, North S, Courneya KS (2013) Randomized controlled trial of a behavior change intervention to increase physical activity and quality of life in prostate cancer survivors. Ann Behav Med 46:382–393. doi: 10.1007/s12160-013-9519-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2008) Physical activity guidelines for Americans. http://wwwhealthgov/paguidelines/pdf/paguidepdf Assessed 6 September 2016.
  11. 11.
    Godin G, Shepard RJ (1985) A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community. Can J Appl Sport Sci 10:141–146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frank LD, Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Leary L, Cain K, Conway TL, Hess PM (2010) The development of a walkability index: application to the Neighborhood Quality of Life Study. Br J Sports Med 44:924–933. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2009.058701 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blundell R, Dias MC (2009) Alternative approaches to evaluation in empirical microeconomics. J Hum Resour 44:565–640Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Cauwenberg J, Clarys P, De Bourdeaudhuij I et al (2012) Physical environmental factors related to walking and cycling in older adults: the Belgian aging studies. BMC Public Health 12:142. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-142 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Adams MA, Sallis JF, Conway TL et al (2012) Neighborhood environment profiles for physical activity among older adults. Am J Health Behav 36:757–769. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.36.6.4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fuller D, Potvin L (2012) Context by treatment interactions as the primary object of study in cluster randomized controlled trials of population health interventions. Int J Public Health 57:633–636. doi: 10.1007/s00038-012-0357-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lynch BM, Owen N, Hawkes AL, Aitken JF (2010) Perceived barriers to physical activity for colorectal cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer 18:729–734. doi: 10.1007/s00520-009-0705-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erin L. McGowan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniel Fuller
    • 1
  • Nicoleta Cutumisu
    • 2
  • Scott North
    • 3
  • Kerry S. Courneya
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Human Kinetics and RecreationMemorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’sCanada
  2. 2.Centre INRS-Institut Armand-FrappierLavalCanada
  3. 3.Medical Oncology, Department of OncologyUniversity of Alberta, Cross Cancer InstituteEdmontonCanada
  4. 4.Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, 1-113 University Hall, Van Vliet ComplexUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations