Psycho-Oncologie

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 293–297 | Cite as

Pertinence d’un programme associant un suivi diététique et une activité physique adaptée au regard des priorités de patientes atteintes de cancer du sein traitées par chimiothérapie adjuvante

  • M. Pannard
  • J. Carretier
  • B. Fervers
  • M. Préau
  • N. Kalampalikis
Article Original / Original Article
  • 29 Downloads

Résumé

Objectif

Cet article vise à explorer l’impact d’un programme associant suivi diététique et activité physique adaptée pendant les traitements sur la qualité de vie de patientes atteintes de cancer du sein. Nous nous intéresserons plus particulièrement à l’expérience des patients et à la cohérence du programme avec leurs objectifs et priorités.

Méthode

Trois focus groups ont été réalisés avec les participantes au programme.

Résultats

Nos résultats suggèrent que le programme est associé à un haut niveau de satisfaction, notamment lié au fait de partager des expériences communes. La fin du programme doit être préparée afin de prévenir un sentiment d’abandon et d’éviter un arrêt de la pratique d’une activité physique.

Conclusion

Cette étude souligne un impact positif de la participation au programme sur la qualité de vie subjective des patientes et une cohérence de la pratique d’une activité physique avec leurs priorités personnelles et leur volonté de prendre soin d’elles et de leur santé.

Mots clés

Qualité de vie Response shift Cancer du sein Activité physique adaptée 

Coherence of a healthy diet and adapted physical activity program with personal priorities of breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy

Abstract

Aim

This paper explores the impact of a healthy diet and adapted physical activity program during treatments on quality of life in breast cancer patients. It focuses on patient’s experience and on the coherence of the program with their goals and priorities.

Procedure

Three focus groups sessions were held with the participants of the program.

Results

Our results suggest that the program brings a high level of satisfaction. Most patients appreciated sharing common experiences. Awell-prepared conclusion is necessary to avoid a feeling of loneliness.

Conclusion

This study highlights a positive impact of the program on the participants’ quality of life, and the coherence of the practice of a physical activity with their priorities and their desire to take care of themselves and their health.

Keywords

Quality of life Response shift Breast cancer Adapted physical activity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. 1.
    American Institute for Cancer Research (2007) Food, nutrition, physical activity and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective. A project of World Cancer Research Fund International. American Institute for Cancer Research, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Institut national du cancer (2014) Plan cancer 2014–2019. Institut national du cancerGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zelek L, Bouillet T, Latino-Martel P, et al (2010) Mode de vie et cancer du sein: quels conseils pour la prise en charge de l’aprèscancer? Oncologie 12:289–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Demark-Wahnefried W, Peterson B, McBride C, et al (2000) Current health behaviors and readiness to pursue life-style changes among men and women diagnosed with early stage prostate and breast carcinomas. Cancer 88:674–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maley M, Warren BS, Devine CM (2013) A second chance: meanings of body weight, diet, and physical activity to women who have experienced cancer. J Nutr Educ Behav 45:232–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Demark-Wahnefried W, Aziz NM, Rowland JH, Pinto B (2005) Riding the crest of the teachable moment: promoting long-term health after the diagnosis of cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:5814–30CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Faul LA, Jim HS, Minton S, et al (2011) Relationship of exercise to quality of life in cancer patients beginning chemotherapy. J Pain Symptom Manage 40:859–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Missel M, Pedersen JH, Hendriksen C, et al (2015) Exercise intervention for patients diagnosed with operable non-small cell lung cancer: a qualitative longitudinal feasibility study. Support Care Cancer 23:2311–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bonnaud-Antignac A, Préau M (2012) Adaptation et cancer. In: Psychologie de l’adaptation. De Boeck, Bruxelles, pp 441–57Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    WHOQOL Group (1993) Study protocol for the World Health Organizaton project to develop a Quality of Life assessment instrument (WHOQOL). Qual Life Res 2:153–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Foucaut AM, Berthouze-Aranda SE, Touillaud M, et al (2014) Reduction of health risk factors through an adapted physical activity program in patients with breast cancer. Support Care Cancer 22:1097–104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Touillaud M, Foucault AM, Berthouze SE, et al (2013) Design of a randomised controlled trial of adapted physical activity during adjuvant treatment for localised breast cancer: the PASAPAS feasibility study. MJ Open 3. http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/10/ e003855.abstractGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Caillaud S, Kalampalikis N (2013) Focus groups and ecological practices: a psychosocial approach. Qual Res Psychol 10:382–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kalampalikis N (2004) Les focus groups, lieux d’ancrage. Bull Psychol 57:281–9Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ryan KE, Gandha T, Culbertson MJ, Carlson C (2014) Focus group evidence: implications for design and analysis. Am J Eval 35:328–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kitzinger J (2013) Using focus groups to understand experiences of health and illness. In: Ziebland S, Coulter A, Calabrese JD, et al (eds) Understanding and using health experiences: improving patient care. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Flick U (2008) Designing qualitative research. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krippendorff K (2004) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology, 2nd ed. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morgan DL (2010) Reconsidering the role of interaction in analyzing and reporting focus groups. Qual Health Res 20:718–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schwartz CE, Andresen EM, Nosek MA, et al (2007) Reponse shift theory: important implications for measuring quality of life in people with disability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 88:529–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Breetvelt IS, Van Dam FSAM (1991) Underreporting by cancer patients: the case of response shift. Soc Sci Med 32:981–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schwartz CE, Sprangers MAG (1999) Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health-related quality-of-life research. Soc Sci Med 48:1531–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sprangers MAG, Schwartz CE (1999) Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med 48:1507–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rapkin BD, Schwartz CE (2004) Toward a theoretical model of quality-of-life appraisal: implications of findings from studies of response shift. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-2-14Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Lavoisier 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Pannard
    • 1
  • J. Carretier
    • 2
    • 3
  • B. Fervers
    • 2
  • M. Préau
    • 1
    • 4
  • N. Kalampalikis
    • 1
  1. 1.Groupe de recherche en psychologie sociale (GRePS EA 4163)université Lyon-IIBronFrance
  2. 2.Département Cancer EnvironnementCentre Léon-BérardLyonFrance
  3. 3.EA 7425 HESPER, Health Services and Performance ResearchUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1LyonFrance
  4. 4.Inserm U912 SESSTIMMarseilleFrance

Personalised recommendations