Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Health Psychol Rev. 2009 May 1;4(1):22–41. doi: 10.1080/17437190903384291

Table 1.

Characteristics of Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis.

Study QoL
Measurea
Exercise
Duration
(Minutes)
Exercise
Intensityb
Length of
Intervention
Frequency
(Times/Week)
Exercise Type Participant
Age
Time
Since
Diagnosis (Months)
Cancer Stage(s) Exercise
During or
Post Cancer
Treatment
Supervised
Exercise?
Total PEDro
Quality Scorec
Social
Interaction
Mentioned as
Intentional
Component of
Intervention?
Unique
Contribution
of Social
Functioning QoL
Group Format Interventions
Cadmus et al., 2009 YES Study QoL: FACT B 30 m-h 24 5 participant can choose activity, most choose walking 55.8 45 0-IIIa post yes 7 no not reported
Campbell et al., 2005 QoL: FACT G 15 m-h 12 2 biking; circuits; dance/aerobics; resistance training; walking 47.5 1 ? during yes 3 mentioned post hoc not reported
Herrero et al., 2006 QoL: EORTC 90 h 8 3 cycle ergometer; resistance 50.5 ? I - II post yes 5 no not reported
Kolden et al., 2002 QoL: FACT G 60 h 16 3 biking; dance; step and other aerobics; walking 55.3 - I, II, III most during yes n/a no some improvement; some no change
Mutrie et al., 2007 QoL: FACT G 45 m-h 12 3 aerobics; circuits; cycling; resistance training; walking 51.6 5.4 0, I, II, III during yes 7 mentioned post hoc improvement
Ohira et al., 2006 CARES-SF ? ? 24 2 resistance training 53.1 22.5 DCIS, I, II, III post yes 7 yes improvement
Pinto et al., 2003 POMS total mood disurbance 50 m 12 3 arm/leg ergometers; arm cycling; rowing; stationary biking; walking 52.5 15.1 0, I, II post yes 4 no not reported
Sandel et al., 2005 QoL: FACT B 56 ? 12 1.5 dance/aerobics 59.6 ? ? both yes 6 yes not reported
Schulz et al., 1998 SF-36 Mental Health subscale of Mental Health domain 90 ? 10 2 gymnastics and games; running 53.9 ? ? ? ? n/a yes improvement
Segal et al., 2001 QoL: FACT G ? l-m 26 5 walking 50.9 1 I, II during yes 4 no no change
Turner et al., 2004 QoL: FACT B 50 h 8 3 aerobics; ergometers; water exercise 47 17 ? post yes n/a mentioned post hoc not reported
Individual Format Interventions - -
Cadmus et al., 2009 IMPACT Study QoL: FACT B 30 m-h 24 5 participant can choose activity, most choose walking 54.3 1.2 0-IIIa during no 7 - -
Courneya et al., 2003 QoL: FACT G 35 h 15 3 biking 59 ? I, IIa, IIb, IIIa post yes 8 - -
Hughes et al., 2008 SF-36 Menal Health domain 60 ? 10 ? stationary bike; walking; exercise tailored to each participant 50 61.3 I, II, III, IV, some participants did not know post no n/a - -
Kramer, 1996 Quality of life index for patients with cancer 45 m-h 12 3 walking ? ? I, II both no n/a - -
McKenzie & Kalda, 2003 SF-36 Mental Health domain 20 ? 8 3 arm cycle ergometers; resistance training 56.6 ? I, II post yes 4 - -
Pinto et al., 2005 POMS total mood disturbance 30 m 12 5 participants choose activity (e.g., biking; swimming; walking) 53.1 22 0, I, II post no 5 - -
Schwartz, 1999 Quality of Life Index for patients with Cancer 22.5 l-m 8 3.5 ? 47 1 I, II, III, IV during no n/a - -

Notes:

a

FACT-G = Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General; FACT-B = Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for patients with Breast cancer (includes FACT-G in all studies included in this meta-analysis); WHOQOL-BREF = World Health Organization Quality of Life instrument, short form; EORTC QLQ-C30 =The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire; SF-36 = The Short Form (36) Health Survey; CARES-SF = The Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System – Short Form; POMS = Profile of Mood States.

b

Exercise intensity abbreviations as follows: “l” = low; “m” = moderate; “h” = hard.

c

Total PEDro Score is out of 8; two of the usually included items were not applicable to behavioral interventions such as physical activity interventions (these were the items assessing the blinding of participants and the blinding of therapists conducting the interventions).

?” indicates that the data were not reported by study authors.

“-” indicates that the data was not appropriate for coding for the meta-analysis