31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The feasibility and acceptability of trial procedures for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a structured physical activity intervention for people diagnosed with colorectal cancer: findings from a pilot trial of cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care (no rehabilitation) with an embedded qualitative study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Pilot and feasibility work is conducted to evaluate the operational feasibility and acceptability of the intervention itself and the feasibility and acceptability of a trials’ protocol design. The Cardiac Rehabilitation In Bowel cancer (CRIB) study was a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) of cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care (no rehabilitation) for post-surgical colorectal cancer patients. A key aim of the pilot trial was to test the feasibility and acceptability of the protocol design.

          Methods

          A pilot RCT with embedded qualitative work was conducted in three sites. Participants were randomly allocated to cardiac rehabilitation or usual care groups. Outcomes used to assess the feasibility and acceptability of key trial parameters were screening, eligibility, consent, randomisation, adverse events, retention, completion, missing data, and intervention adherence rates. Colorectal patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions and experiences of the main trial procedures were explored by interview.

          Results

          Quantitative study. Three sites were involved. Screening, eligibility, consent, and retention rates were 79 % (156/198), 67 % (133/198), 31 % (41/133), and 93 % (38/41), respectively. Questionnaire completion rates were 97.5 % (40/41), 75 % (31/41), and 61 % (25/41) at baseline, follow-up 1, and follow-up 2, respectively. Sixty-nine percent (40) of accelerometer datasets were collected from participants; 31 % (20) were removed for not meeting wear-time validation.

          Qualitative study: Thirty-eight patients and eight clinicians participated. Key themes were benefits for people with colorectal cancer attending cardiac rehabilitation, barriers for people with colorectal cancer attending cardiac rehabilitation, generic versus disease-specific rehabilitation, key concerns about including people with cancer in cardiac rehabilitation, and barriers to involvement in a study about cardiac rehabilitation.

          Conclusions

          The study highlights where threats to internal and external validity are likely to arise in any future studies of similar structured physical activity interventions for colorectal cancer patients using similar methods being conducted in similar contexts. This study shows that there is likely to be potential recruitment bias and potential imprecision due to sub-optimal completion of outcome measures, missing data, and sub-optimal intervention adherence. Hence, strategies to manage these risks should be developed to stack the odds in favour of conducting successful future trials.

          Trial registration

          ISRCTN63510637

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The RE-AIM framework: a systematic review of use over time.

          We provided a synthesis of use, summarized key issues in applying, and highlighted exemplary applications in the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. We articulated key RE-AIM criteria by reviewing the published literature from 1999 to 2010 in several databases to describe the application and reporting on various RE-AIM dimensions. After excluding nonempirical articles, case studies, and commentaries, 71 articles were identified. The most frequent publications were on physical activity, obesity, and disease management. Four articles reported solely on 1 dimension compared with 44 articles that reported on all 5 dimensions of the framework. RE-AIM was broadly applied, but several criteria were not reported consistently.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Measurement of adults' sedentary time in population-based studies.

            Sedentary time (too much sitting) increasingly is being recognized as a distinct health risk behavior. This paper reviews the reliability and validity of self-reported and device-based sedentary time measures and provides recommendations for their use in population-based studies. The focus is on instruments that have been used in free-living, population-based research in adults. Data from the 2003-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey are utilized to compare the descriptive epidemiology of sedentary time that arises from the use of different sedentary time measures. A key recommendation from this review is that, wherever possible, population-based monitoring of sedentary time should incorporate both self-reported measures (to capture important domain- and behavior-specific sedentary time information) and device-based measures (to measure both total sedentary time and patterns of sedentary time accumulation). Copyright © 2011 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research.

              The purpose of this review is to address important methodological issues related to conducting accelerometer-based assessments of physical activity in free-living individuals. We review the extant scientific literature for empirical information related to the following issues: product selection, number of accelerometers needed, placement of accelerometers, epoch length, and days of monitoring required to estimate habitual physical activity. We also discuss the various options related to distributing and collecting monitors and strategies to enhance compliance with the monitoring protocol. No definitive evidence exists currently to indicate that one make and model of accelerometer is more valid and reliable than another. Selection of accelerometer therefore remains primarily an issue of practicality, technical support, and comparability with other studies. Studies employing multiple accelerometers to estimate energy expenditure report only marginal improvements in explanatory power. Accelerometers are best placed on hip or the lower back. Although the issue of epoch length has not been studied in adults, the use of count cut points based on 1-min time intervals maybe inappropriate in children and may result in underestimation of physical activity. Among adults, 3-5 d of monitoring is required to reliably estimate habitual physical activity. Among children and adolescents, the number of monitoring days required ranges from 4 to 9 d, making it difficult to draw a definitive conclusion for this population. Face-to-face distribution and collection of accelerometers is probably the best option in field-based research, but delivery and return by express carrier or registered mail is a viable option. Accelerometer-based activity assessments requires careful planning and the use of appropriate strategies to increase compliance.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                gill.hubbard@stir.ac.uk
                ronan.ocarroll@stir.ac.uk
                julie.blair@stir.ac.uk
                nanette.mutrie@ed.ac.uk
                s.j.haw@stir.ac.uk
                helen.mason@gcu.ac.uk
                streweek@me.com
                Journal
                Pilot Feasibility Stud
                Pilot Feasibility Stud
                Pilot and Feasibility Studies
                BioMed Central (London )
                2055-5784
                24 August 2016
                24 August 2016
                2016
                : 2
                : 51
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Health Sciences, University of Stirling, Highland Campus, Old Perth Road, Inverness, IV2 3JH UK
                [2 ]Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA UK
                [3 ]Centre for Health Science, School of Health Science, University of Stirling, Highland Campus, Old Perth Road, Inverness, IV2 3JH UK
                [4 ]Moray House School of Education, Institute for Sport, Physical Education and Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 8AQ UK
                [5 ]School of Health Science, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA UK
                [6 ]Helen Mason, Yunus Centre in Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, G4 0BA UK
                [7 ]Shaun Treweek, Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD UK
                Article
                90
                10.1186/s40814-016-0090-y
                5153896
                27965868
                b3bf4fb8-4103-4e5f-be3b-5699adaf6792
                © The Author(s). 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 26 November 2015
                : 29 July 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002001, Health Services and Delivery Research Programme;
                Award ID: 12/5001/09
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                pilot,feasibility,acceptability,cardiac rehabilitation,colorectal cancer,physical activity

                Comments

                Comment on this article