Table 4.
Effectiveness of interventions
| Source | Behaviour focus | Theoretical component (yes/no) | Self-tracking (yes/no) | Supervision/counselling component(s) | Level of tailoring | Main outcome effecta | QoL effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alibhai 2019 [47] | Activity | Minimal – action/coping planning | Yes | 1to1 vs F2F Group (G) vs Phone calls (HB) | Minimal based on baseline fitness |
Probability of inferiority VO2 • GvsPT: 8.2%b • HBvsPT: 26.7%b |
Probability of inferiority FACT-P • GvsPT: 20.9%b • HBvsPT: 74.4%b FACT-G • GvsPT: 25.6%b • HBvsPT: 37.9%b |
| Bourke 2011 [48] | Nutrition and activity | Minimal – habit formation, autonomy | Yes | F2F education classes | High – feedback and messages |
• Godin LSI: between group diff = 16.3, 95%CI (8.8 to 23.8); p < .001c • Daily kcal: between group diff = − 258.5, (− 32.5 to − 484.5); p = .005c |
• FACT-P: 5.5 (− 4.2 to 15.3); p = .21 • FACT-G: 3.6 (− 3.9 to 11.0); p = .25 • FACT-F: 5.4 (0.8–10.0); p = .002c (all between group diff) |
| Demark-Wahnefried 2006 [49] | Nutrition and activity | Yes – SCT, TTM | Yes | Phone | High – feedback and messages |
• Diet quality: between group diff + 5.1, p = .0026c • PF: between group diff = + 3.6; p = .23 |
• FACT-G: between group diff − 0.3, p = .38 |
| Demark-Wahnefried 2018 [50] | Nutrition | Yes – SCT, SEM | No | Home visits & phone | Minimal – plant preferences |
• Veg&Fruit per day: between group diff p < .06 • Abdominal obesity (cm): between group diff p = .05 |
• SF-36 Physical and Mental summary scores: between-arm diff p < .05b • Pain between group diff p < .01b |
| Desbiens 2017 [51] | Activity | No | Minimald | None vs F2F | None |
• FACT-Fe: no change either group • BMIe: within group diff: G: − 2.3; p < .05 |
• FACT-Ge: no change either group • FACT-Be: no change either group |
| Lai 2017 [52] | Activity | No | No | F2F | None |
• 6MWD: between groups diff + 19.2 m; p = .029c • PEF: between groups diff: + 18.0 L/min p < .001c |
• Global QoL: between groups diff: − 0.5; p = .785 |
| Loh 2019 [53] | Activity | No | Yes | F2F education | Minimal – based on baseline step count |
• STAI: 75th percentile between group diff = − 5.39; p = .001c; 90th percentile between group diff = − 10.97; p < .001c • POMS: 75th percentile between group diff = − 5.04; p = .032c; 90th percentile between group diff = − 11.12; p = .007c |
• SWB: 5th percentile between group diff = 3.90; p < .001c; 25th percentile between group diff = 1.39; p = .006c • EWB: 5th percentile between group diff = 1.82; p = .026c |
| Miki 2014 [54] | Activity | No | No | F2F | None | • FAB: group*time interaction F = 7.88; p = .006c | • FACT-G: no interaction (p = .74) or group effect (p = .61) |
| Monga 2007 [55] | Activity | No | No | F2F | Minimal – based on HR measures | • PFS: between group diff t = − 4.72; < .001c |
• PWB: t = 4.19; < .001c • SWB: 3.47; < .002c • EWB: − 0.73; p = .48 • FWB: 2.24; p = .04c (all between group diff) |
| Morey 2009 [56] | Nutrition and Activity | Yes – SCT | Yes | Phone | High – feedback and messages | • SF-36 PF: between group diff = 2.69; p = .03c | • QoL: between group diff = 2.71; p = .02c |
| Park 2012 [57] | Activity | No | No | F2Ff | Minimal – based on HRR | • FPF: between group diff p < .001c |
• Physical QoL: between group diff recovery p < .001c • Mental QoL: between group diff recovery p = .017c |
| Porserud 2014 [58] | Activity | No | No | F2F Group | Minimal – adaptations for abilities | • 6MWD improved: between group diff p = .013c | • SF-36 role physical improved between group diff p = .031c |
| Sprod 2015 [59] | Activity | No | No | F2F Group | None | • CRF: between group diff = − 5.5; p = .03c | • CSI: between group diff = − 4.51; p = .009c |
| Winters-Stone 2016 [60] | Activity | Minimal – social support | No | F2F Group | Minimal – based on BW and limitations |
• Bench press (kg): between group diff = 0.62; p < .01c • SR weekly MET between group diff = 303.60; p < .01c |
• Physical QoL: between group diff p = .99 • Mental QoL: between group diff p = .39 |
aIf feasibility was primary outcome, candidate primary outcome presented
bFavouring control group
cFavouring intervention group
dNumber of times completed video workout
eNo between group analyses completed
fUnknown whether individual or group-based
PA physical activity, TTM transtheoretical model, SCT social cognitive theory, SEM social ecological model, F2F face to face, G group, PT personal training, HB home-based, HR heart rate, HRR heart rate reserve, BW body weight, V02 maximum rate of oxygen consumption, LSI leisure score index, kcal kilocalorie, cm centimetre, BMI body mass index, 6MWD 6-min walk distance, PEF peak expiratory flow, PF physical function, FPF functional physical fitness, kg kilogramme, FACT-G functional assessment of cancer therapy-general, FACT-P FACT-prostate, FACT-B FACT-breast, FACT-F FACT-fatigue, PFS Piper Fatigue Scale, POMS Profile of Mood States, STAI State Trait Anxiety Inventory, FAB functional assessment battery, SWB social well-being, PWB physical well-being, EWB emotional well-being, PFS SF-36 short form-36, CRF cancer-related fatigue, CSI clinical symptom inventory, QoL quality of life, CI confidence interval, SR self-reported, MET metabolic equivalent