Author:
Reynolds Sophie A.,O’Connor Louise,McGee Anna,Kilcoyne Anna Quinn,Connolly Archie,Mockler David,Guinan Emer,O’Neill Linda
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Despite clear evidence-based supporting a benefit to exercise on physical and psychological metrics in patients with cancer, recruitment to exercise trials amongst cancer survivors is suboptimal. We explore current recruitment rates, strategies, and common barriers to participation in exercise oncology trials in cancer survivorship.
Methods
A systematic review was conducted using a pre-defined search strategy in EMBASE, CINAHL, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The search was performed up to 28/02/2022. Screening of titles and abstracts, full-text review, and data extraction was completed in duplicate.
Results
Of the 3204 identified studies, 87 papers corresponding to 86 trials were included. Recruitment rates were highly variable with a median rate of 38% (range 0.52–100%). Trials recruiting prostate cancer patients only had the highest median recruitment rate (45.9%) vs trials recruiting colorectal cancer patients only which had the lowest (31.25%). Active recruitment strategies such as direct recruitment via a healthcare professional were associated with higher recruitment rates (rho = 0.201, p = 0.064). Common reasons for non-participation included lack of interest (46.51%, n (number of studies) = 40); distance and transport (45.3%, n = 39); and failure to contact (44.2%, n = 38).
Conclusions
Recruitment of cancer survivors to exercise interventions is suboptimal with barriers being predominantly patient-oriented. This paper provides the benchmark for current recruitment rates to exercise oncology trials, providing data for trialists planning future trial design and implementation, optimise future recruitment strategies, and evaluate their own recruitment success against current practice.
Implications for Cancer Survivors
Enhanced recruitment to cancer survivorship exercise trials is necessary in facilitating the publication of definitive exercise guidelines, generalisable to varying cancer cohorts.
PROSPERO registration number
CRD42020185968.
Funder
Health Research Board
University of Dublin, Trinity College
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Oncology (nursing),Oncology
Reference107 articles.
1. Papageorgiou SN, Antonoglou GN, Tsiranidou E, Jepsen S, Jager A. Bias and small-study effects influence treatment effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study in oral medicine. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(9):984–92.
2. Chaimani A, Vasiliadis HS, Pandis N, Schmid CH, Welton NJ, Salanti G. Effects of study precision and risk of bias in networks of interventions: a network meta-epidemiological study. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(4):1120–31.
3. Lin L. Bias caused by sampling error in meta-analysis with small sample sizes. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(9):e0204056.
4. Rusticus SA, Lovate CY. Impact of sample size and variability on the power and type I error rates of equivalence tests: a simulation study. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. 2014;19(11).
5. Jones SR, Carley S, Harrison M. An introduction to power and sample size estimation. Emerg Med J. 2003;20:453–8.
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献