Nadine Ungar

A self-regulation-based intervention to increase physical activity in cancer patients

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; χ2(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.

What explains the intention to be physically active in cancer patients? Different determinants for active and insufficiently active patients.

In a qualitative elicitation study with 61 cancer patients, a broad range of attitudes toward physical activity could be obtained, especially negative attitudes among insufficiently active patients. Based on these results, a second quantitative study was conducted; 64 patients [40 men; 42% insufficiently active (<150 minutes/week)] completed a Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) questionnaire. Regression analyses revealed that different variables of the TPB are relevant for explaining the intention to exercise for physically active (subjective norm) and insufficiently active (attitudes) cancer patients. Health professionals should adapt their support to the special needs of insufficiently active and active cancer patients.

Social support and social control in the context of cancer patients’ exercise: A pilot study:

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.

Are healthcare professionals being left in the lurch? The role of structural barriers and information resources to promote physical activity to cancer patients

PurposeAlthough many cancer patients benefit from physical activity (PA), healthcare professionals (HCP) still do not promote it routinely. Including different groups of HCP, this study aimed to examine how structural barriers are perceived as impeding by HCP for promoting PA to cancer patients, how the perceptions of structural barriers are associated with promoting PA, and how HCP react to information resources.MethodsA total of 287 physicians in outpatient care, 242 physicians in inpatient care, and 388 oncology nurses completed our questionnaire (paper-pencil or online). Participants assessed nine different structural barriers (on a 4-point Likert Scale) and reported their PA promotion frequency. Further, they could request three different kinds of information resources about PA in oncological settings.ResultsAcross professional groups, more than 70% of HCP indicated that they promoted PA to their cancer patients often or routinely. Oncology nurses indicated that they were more impeded in promoting PA by six structural barriers than physicians (all p < .01). “Not enough time per patient” and “lack of an expert contact person” were associated with a reduced PA promotion in two professional groups (all p < .05). Information resources were requested by 69.5% of the participants: mostly physicians working in outpatient care and especially by those perceiving structural barriers.ConclusionsAlthough 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.

Health care professionals’ perception of contraindications for physical activity during cancer treatment

Introduction Suggested medical contraindications for physical activity (PA) during cancer therapy might have an influence on PA recommendation behavior of Health Care Professionals (HCP). The purpose of the present study was to examine perceptions of physicians and oncology nurses (ON) toward specific medical conditions as contraindications for PA during cancer treatment. Materials and methods A total of 539 physicians and 386 ON were enrolled in this cross-sectional survey. HCP judged 13 medical conditions as to whether they are contraindications for PA during cancer treatment. Answering format was “no contraindication”/“potentially a contraindication”/“yes, a contraindication.” Results χ2 analyses revealed significant differences between general practitioners, specialized physicians, and ON in their perception of 10 medical conditions. Approximately half of the medical conditions were answered cautiously, showing high numbers on the response option potentially (36–72%). Moreover, physicians’ ratings differed significantly depending on their practical experience with particular medical conditions. Those being familiar with a specific medical condition was more permissive to PA during treatment, with effect sizes (Cramer’s V) ranging from 0.13 to 0.27. Conclusion Results indicate high cautiousness among HCP in judging medical conditions and their impact on PA during cancer treatment. However, group comparisons show that familiarity and clinical experience with potential contraindications facilitate a confident handling of safety issues, which at best leads to higher levels of PA recommendations during cancer treatment.