OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of a submaximal exercise test in detecting change in fitness level after a physical training program, and to investigate the correlation of outcomes as measured submaximally or maximally.DESIGN: A prospective study in which exercise testing was performed before and after training intervention.SETTING: Academic and general hospital and rehabilitation center.PARTICIPANTS: Cancer survivors (N=147) (all cancer types, medical treatment completed > or =3 mo ago) attended a 12-week supervised exercise program.INTERVENTIONS: A 12-week training program including aerobic training, strength training, and group sport.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures were changes in peak oxygen uptake (Vo(2)peak) and peak power output (both determined during exhaustive exercise testing) and submaximal heart rate (determined during submaximal testing at a fixed workload).RESULTS: The Vo(2)peak and peak power output increased and the submaximal heart rate decreased significantly from baseline to postintervention (P<.001). Changes in submaximal heart rate were only weakly correlated with changes in Vo(2)peak and peak power output. Comparing the participants performing submaximal testing with a heart rate less than 140 beats per minute (bpm) versus the participants achieving a heart rate of 140 bpm or higher showed that changes in submaximal heart rate in the group cycling with moderate to high intensity (ie, heart rate > or =140 bpm) were clearly related to changes in VO(2)peak and peak power output.CONCLUSIONS: For the monitoring of training progress in daily clinical practice, changes in heart rate at a fixed submaximal workload that requires a heart rate greater than 140 bpm may serve as an alternative to an exhaustive exercise test.
DOCUMENT
PurposeTo support the development and implementation of exercise programming for people with prostate cancer (PC), we investigated their views on exercise.MethodsOnline survey with open recruitment. We collected data on clinical and sociodemographic variables, experiences with exercise advice, outcome expectations, and preferences. We explored determinants of (1) having been counselled about exercise and (2) preferring supervised exercise.ResultsThe survey was completed by 171 patients (mean age = 70 years, SD = 6.5) from all PC treatment pathways. Sixty-three percent of the respondents reported never having been informed about the potential benefits of exercise. Forty-nine percent preferred exercise to be supervised. Respondents generally reported a positive attitude towards exercise. Seventy-four percent indicated barriers to exercising, including fatigue and lack of access to specific programmes. Outcome expectations were generally positive but moderately strong. Receiving hormonal therapy and younger age were significantly associated with having received exercise advice. Being insured and having higher fatigue levels contributed significantly to the preference for supervised exercise.ConclusionDutch people with PC report receiving insufficient effective exercise counselling. Yet, they are open to exercise and expect exercise to improve their health, although they experience various barriers that limit their ability to exercise.Implications for Cancer SurvivorsThe moderate outcome expectations for exercise of people with PC and their limited recall of exercise counselling highlight the need for better integration of exercise in clinical pathways. The lack of access to specific programming limits the use of evidence-based exercise programmes for people with PC.
MULTIFILE
OBJECTIVES: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is characterized by its heterogeneity, with large differences in clinical characteristics between patients. Therefore, a stratified approach to exercise therapy, whereby patients are allocated to homogeneous subgroups and receive a stratified, subgroup-specific intervention, can be expected to optimize current clinical effects. Recently, we developed and pilot tested a model of stratified exercise therapy based on clinically relevant subgroups of knee OA patients that we previously identified. Based on the promising results, it is timely to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of stratified exercise therapy compared with usual, "nonstratified" exercise therapy.METHODS: A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial including economic and process evaluation, comparing stratified exercise therapy with usual care by physical therapists (PTs) in primary care, in a total of 408 patients with clinically diagnosed knee OA. Eligible physical therapy practices are randomized in a 1:2 ratio to provide the experimental (in 204 patients) or control intervention (in 204 patients), respectively. The experimental intervention is a model of stratified exercise therapy consisting of (a) a stratification algorithm that allocates patients to a "high muscle strength subgroup," "low muscle strength subgroup," or "obesity subgroup" and (b) subgroup-specific, protocolized exercise therapy (with an additional dietary intervention from a dietician for the obesity subgroup only). The control intervention will be usual best practice by PTs (i.e., nonstratified exercise therapy). Our primary outcome measures are knee pain severity (Numeric Rating Scale) and physical functioning (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscale daily living). Measurements will be performed at baseline, 3-month (primary endpoint), 6-month (questionnaires only), and 12-month follow-up, with an additional cost questionnaire at 9 months. Intention-to-treat, multilevel, regression analysis comparing stratified versus usual care will be performed.CONCLUSION: This study will demonstrate whether stratified care provided by primary care PTs is effective and cost-effective compared with usual best practice from PTs.
DOCUMENT
