Courneya 2003b.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Number randomized: 102; 69 to the exercise group and 33 to a waiting list control group Study start and stop dates: October 1998 to April 2001 Length of intervention: 16 weeks Length of follow‐up: to end of the intervention
Participants	Type cancer: colorectal cancer Time since cancer diagnosis: not reported Time beyond active treatment: surgery within the last 3 months Inclusion criteria: recovery from surgery as indicated by attending physician ability to understand English Eligibility criterion related to interest or ability to exercise, or both: passed the revised Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire no contraindications to exercise as determined by a submaximal cardiorespiratory fitness test Gender: exercise group: 54.8% male control group: 64.5% male Current age, mean (SD) years: exercise group: mean 59.92 (10.73) years control group: 61.1 (9.93) years Age at cancer diagnosis: not reported Ethnicity/race: not reported Education level: exercise group: 35% completed university control group: 46.4% completed university SES: exercise group: 65.5% with income > USD40,000 control group: 53.6% with income >USD40,000 Employment status: exercise group: 29.5% employed full time control group: 30.0% employed full time Comorbidities: not reported Past exercise history: mean (SD) number of minutes of exercise per week: exercise group: mild exercise, 121.45 (214.60) minutes; moderate exercise, 77.98 (137.01) minutes; strenuous exercise, 13.47 (69.36) minutes; total, 212.90 (248.04) minutes; % > 60 moderate/strenuous exercise, 40.3%, % > 150 moderate/strenuous, 27.4% control group: mild exercise, 164.03 (295.10); moderate exercise, 68.87 (97.57); strenuous exercise, 27.74 (57.43); total, 260.65 (323.77); % > 60 moderate/strenuous exercise, 41.9%, % > 150 moderate/strenuous, 32.3% On hormone therapy: not reported
Interventions	69 participants assigned to the experimental exercise intervention, including: home‐based personalized exercise program that could be any activity designed to "improve functional wellbeing through cardiovascular and flexibility exercises", if none, walking prescribed Type exercise (aerobic/anaerobic): unclear Intensity of experimental exercise intervention: to 65% to 75% of HR Frequency: 3 to 5 times per week Duration of session: 20 to 30 minutes Duration of exercise program: 16 weeks Total number of exercise sessions: 48 to 80 Format: individual Facility: home based Not professionally led, but designed by professional Adherence: overall adherence, 75.8% Calculated as effect size (difference in variable between groups divided by SD of control group): mild exercise = 0.20 moderate exercise = 0.16 strenuous exercise = 0.07 moderate/strenuous = 0.15 total exercise = 0.07 % > 60 moderate/strenuous, 75.8% % > 150 moderate/strenuous, 41.9% 33 participants assigned to control: waiting list control Contamination of control group: overall, 51.6% Calculated as effect size (difference in variable between groups divided by SD of control group) % > 60 moderate/strenuous, 51.6% % > 150 moderate/strenuous, 32.3%
Outcomes	Primary outcome: QoL, measured at week 16 using: FACT‐C scale, includes subscales for physical, functional, emotional and social/family well‐being, and colorectal subscale FACT‐G, excludes colorectal subscale TOI score (sum of physical and FWB subscale and colorectal subscale) Secondary outcomes, all measured at 16 weeks included: satisfaction with life, measured using the Satisfaction with Life scale (5 items rated on 7‐point scale) depression, measured using the CES‐D scale anxiety, measured using the STAI cardiovascular fitness, measured using Modified Balke Treadmill Test body composition, measured using Harpenden calipers flexibility, measured using the sit and reach test Outcomes were measured at baseline and end of the intervention: exercise group: n = 69 at baseline, n = 62 after intervention control group: n = 33 at baseline, n = 31 after intervention Adverse events: none reported
Notes	Study country: Canada Funding source: NCIC and Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research; Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CCS, Sociobehavioral Cancer Research Network
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Used a "random‐numbers table"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Whether the treatment assignment was concealed from study personnel and participants was not described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Owing to the nature of the intervention, masking or blinding of study participants was not possible; however, it is unclear whether the lack of masking could influence the outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Fitness test conducted by certified fitness consultant blinded to the experimental group
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Reasons for exclusions presented
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	There appears to be no selective reporting of outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	The trial appears to be free of other problems that could put it at a high risk of bias