Despite a large body of evidence showing that physical activity (PA) is beneficial to patients with cancer, healthcare professionals (HCPs) are promoting it too scarcely. Factors that hinder HCPs from promoting PA have remained understudied so far. Using a qualitative approach, this study aimed at a comprehensive description of influencing factors for HCPs' PA promotion behaviour and at identifying the reasons and mechanisms behind them. Semi-structured interviews with 30 HCPs were undertaken with a focus on concerns, patient characteristics and structural factors. Answers were analysed using thematic analysis. Results revealed that HCPs had concerns regarding a physical overexertion and psychological stress for patients with cancer. A patient's physical condition and the assumed interest in PA, often derived from former PA, turned out to be the most crucial patient characteristics influencing if PA is addressed. Structural factors relevant for PA promotion pertained to in-house structures, HCPs' workload, timing and coordination, information material for HCPs and patients and availability of exercise programs. In conclusion, this study revealed undetected concerns of HCPs and underlined the relevance of patient characteristics and structural conditions for HCPs' PA promotion towards patients with cancer. A broader perspective is needed to assess these factors in their influence on HCPs' PA promotion.

Although a big proportion of HCP reported that they frequently promoted PA, our findings suggest that HCP still perceive structural barriers. The perception and influence of structural barriers differed between professional groups, pointing to the importance of profession specific guidance.

The study examined whether a behavior-change intervention focusing on self-regulatory strategies and emphasizing role model support increases physical activity (PA) among insufficiently active (not meeting PA guidelines of 150 min/week) cancer patients. Ambulatory cancer patients [N = 72; 54% female; M = 56 years, SD = 12.34; most with breast or colon cancer (34, 15%)] were enrolled in the MOTIVACTION-study, a 4-week intervention (1-hr counseling, followed by weekly phone calls), with pretest (T1), posttest (T2) and a 10-week follow-up (T3). Participants were randomized to either an exercise or to a stress management intervention (active control). The exercise intervention emphasized self-regulatory strategies (e.g. action- and coping planning and self-monitoring); patients were also encouraged to contact a physically active same-sex role model as a potential exercise partner. The active control condition consisted of coping and relaxation techniques. Sixty-seven patients remained in the study and completed the SQUASH assessment of PA and a measure of perceived stress. PA was validated by Actigraph accelerometry. At T2, 46% of the patients in the exercise group and 19% of stress management patients increased their activity levels to meet PA guidelines (>150 min/week; χ(2)(1) = 5.51, p = .019). At T3, participants in the exercise intervention maintained their exercise level (46%), but also 31% of the stress management patients met the guidelines. All patients reported reductions in perceived stress. Additional analyses comparing patients in the exercise group by role model contact (63% realized contact) revealed that those who had contact with their role model were significantly more likely to adhere to the recommended guidelines (T2:50%; T3:64%) compared to those who did not have contact with a role model (T2:39%; T3:15%), suggesting the potential of mobilizing role model support to facilitate PA. In sum, cancer patients may not only benefit from an exercise intervention emphasizing self-regulation, but also from stress management, regarding both reducing stress and increasing PA.

No abstract

Background: Physical activity (PA) can support cancer patients during medical treatment by reducing side-effects and increasing quality of life. However, PA levels mostly decline after diagnosis. Which factors can explain if patients are able to remain or even increase their PA level? Self-efficacy is an important cognitive factor that has been linked to cancer patients' PA across many studies. In contrast, affective factors such as PA enjoyment have rarely been examined. We compare the influence of self-efficacy and PA enjoyment on cancer patients' PA levels after completion of an exercise or stress-management intervention.Methods: Outpatient cancer patients [N = 72; 54% female; M = 56 years, SD = 12.34; most with breast or colon cancer (34%, 15%)] were enrolled in the MOTIVACTION study, a 4-week intervention (1 h counseling followed by weekly phone calls), with pre-test (T1), post-test (T2), and a 10-week follow-up (T3). Participants were randomized to either an exercise intervention (emphasizing self-regulatory strategies for behavior change) or to a stress management intervention (coping and relaxation techniques). Sixty-seven patients remained in the study and completed the SQUASH assessment of PA, a measure of maintenance self-efficacy (7 items, Cronbach's α = 0.88) and PA enjoyment (2 items, Cronbach's α = 0.89). Regression analyses were calculated with PA level (at T2 and T3) as dependent variable and relative weight analyses were conducted. The study was registered at clinicalTrials.gov (unique identifier:NCT01576107; URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01576107?term=motivaction&rank=1).Results: Baseline self-efficacy and change in PA enjoyment significantly predicted cancer patients' PA level at T2 adjusting for baseline PA and type of intervention. Relative weight (RW) analysis revealed that PA enjoyment (baseline and change together) explained 34.3% of the dependent variable, self-efficacy (baseline and change) explained 38.4%. At follow-up, self-efficacy was still a significant predictor of PA (RW = 74.6%), whereas PA enjoyment was no longer a relevant factor (RW = 5.2%).Conclusion: The affective factor PA enjoyment was equally important as self-efficacy for predicting cancer patient' PA level directly after completion of the intervention. Reasons for the reduced relevance at follow-up and a broader range of affective factors should be analyzed in future studies on cancer patients' PA level.

Objective While in the past cancer patients were advised to rest, recent research revealed various beneficial effects of physical activity, including increased treatment tolerability during cancer treatment and prolonged survival, which has led to a paradigm shift in relevant guidelines. This study examined if this paradigm shift from rest to activity has been consolidated in health care professionals' (HCP') attitude. It was investigated if the two dimensions of attitude (rest and activity) are endorsed empirically within the theory of planned behavior (TPB). Differences between physicians and nurses were examined. Methods Five hundred forty seven physicians and 398 nurses treating breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer patients completed a cross‐sectional questionnaire. To assess attitude toward physical activity during cancer treatment, we developed a 15‐item scale, which included original statements of HCP. TPB variables were assessed. Results A factor analysis revealed the proposed distinction of attitude into two dimensions. The activity‐paradigm was stronger represented in HCP' attitude compared with rest‐paradigm (Mactivity‐paradigm = 4.1 versus Mrest‐paradigm = 2.7, p < 0.001). Additionally, the activity‐paradigm had higher exploratory power in explaining intention to recommend physical activity in cancer patients. However, the rest‐paradigm was able to explain intention to recommend physical activity over and above activity‐paradigm (ΔR2 = 0.05). Nurses had higher scores on the rest‐paradigm than physicians. Conclusions The activity‐paradigm has already been consolidated in HCP' minds. However, the rest‐paradigm is still present in the daily routine of oncology physicians and nurses. Addressing concerns and insecurities related to supporting cancer patients in maintaining or building up a physically active lifestyle is a very important educational task.

No abstract

Social support is an important factor for exercise among cancer patients, but too much control might elicit reactance and lead to detrimental effects. In this pilot study, 56 dyads (cancer patient + relative) filled out a questionnaire assessing social support, social control, and reactance. After 4 weeks (T2), patients’ exercise was assessed with a 7-day recall. About half of the patients did not engage in any self-reported exercise behavior. Relative-reported support was the only variable associated with exercise behavior at T2. Perceived control (r = .4) but not perceived support was significantly correlated with reactance. Male patients reported more support, but were also more prone to reactance.