↓ Skip to main content

Long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of high versus low-to-moderate intensity resistance and endurance exercise interventions among cancer survivors

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cancer Survivorship, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
239 Mendeley
Title
Long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of high versus low-to-moderate intensity resistance and endurance exercise interventions among cancer survivors
Published in
Journal of Cancer Survivorship, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11764-018-0681-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. S. Kampshoff, J. M. van Dongen, W. van Mechelen, G. Schep, A. Vreugdenhil, J. W. R. Twisk, J. E. Bosmans, J. Brug, M. J. M. Chinapaw, Laurien M. Buffart

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of high intensity (HI) versus low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) exercise on physical fitness, fatigue, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in cancer survivors. Two hundred seventy-seven cancer survivors participated in the Resistance and Endurance exercise After ChemoTherapy (REACT) study and were randomized to 12 weeks of HI (n = 139) or LMI exercise (n = 138) that had similar exercise types, durations, and frequencies, but different intensities. Measurements were performed at baseline (4-6 weeks after primary treatment), and 12 (i.e., short term) and 64 (i.e., longer term) weeks later. Outcomes included cardiorespiratory fitness, muscle strength, self-reported fatigue, HRQoL, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and societal costs. Linear mixed models were conducted to study (a) differences in effects between HI and LMI exercise at longer term, (b) within-group changes from short term to longer term, and (c) the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective. At longer term, intervention effects on role (β = 5.9, 95% CI = 0.5; 11.3) and social functioning (β = 5.7, 95%CI = 1.7; 9.6) were larger for HI compared to those for LMI exercise. No significant between-group differences were found for physical fitness and fatigue. Intervention-induced improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness and HRQoL were maintained between weeks 12 and 64, but not for fatigue. From a societal perspective, the probability that HI was cost-effective compared to LMI exercise was 0.91 at 20,000€/QALY and 0.95 at 52,000€/QALY gained, mostly due to significant lower healthcare costs in HI exrcise. At longer term, we found larger intervention effects on role and social functioning for HI than for LMI exercise. Furthermore, HI exercise was cost-effective with regard to QALYs compared to LMI exercise. This study is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register [NTR2153 [ http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2153 ]] on the 5th of January 2010. Exercise is recommended to be part of standard cancer care, and HI may be preferred over LMI exercise.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 239 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 239 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 16%
Student > Bachelor 24 10%
Researcher 18 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 32 13%
Unknown 98 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 45 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 14%
Sports and Recreations 21 9%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 19 8%
Unknown 111 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,822,207
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Survivorship
#218
of 986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,881
of 331,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Survivorship
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 986 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.