A home-based resistance training program for survivors of prostate cancer: A pilot randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Introduction: Men with prostate cancer experience a range of disease and treatment-related physical effects. Trials of resistance training (RT) with prostate cancer survivors have demonstrated the potential to improve many of the most common and debilitating symptoms. However, these trials have mainly comprised supervised programs often conducted at hospitals, limiting access for rural participants and capacity for sustainability. Home-based RT programs have the potential to overcome these limitations.Method: Get PHITT (Prostate Health Improved Through Training) was a 12 week, home-based RT program for men with prostate cancer. Men attended one face-to-face session to receive instruction from an exercise specialist and a home-based RT program (3 sessions/week), a behaviour-change support manual, and an elastic resistance device (Gymstick). The support manual incorporated evidence- and theory-informed behaviour change strategies aligned with social cognitive theory. The theoretical constructs operationalised within the support manual included self-efficacy, outcome expectations, social support, and intentions. We aimed to establish feasibility, acceptability and preliminary efficacy via a pilot wait-list RCT. Men (n=39) were recruited via local media and an existing prostate cancer support group. Participants provided patient-reported (quality of life, fatigue, depression/anxiety, acceptability [5 point likert scale SD-SA]) and objectively assessed (muscular strength, body composition, waist circumference, BMI, agility) data. We assessed recruitment and retention rate, and analysed RT log books to assess adherence.Results: The recruitment target was met within 3 days. The program achieved good fidelity (72%) and retention (90%). Intervention participants (n=18) reported that the program was enjoyable (χ¯=4), informative (χ¯=4.6), useful (χ¯=4.5), relevant (χ¯=4.2), that using the Gymstick was enjoyable (χ¯=4.7), and that they would recommend the program to other prostate cancer survivors (100%). Preliminary analyses identified improvements in global quality of life and muscular strength, and decreased fatigue amongst intervention participants that were not observed amongst control participants. Findings of all outcomes will be presented.Discussion: The Get PHITT program has demonstrated acceptability, feasibility and preliminary efficacy. The next step is evaluation in a fully powered trial. Introduction: Men with prostate cancer experience a range of disease and treatment-related physical effects. Trials of resistance training (RT) with prostate cancer survivors have demonstrated the potential to improve many of the most common and debilitating symptoms. However, these trials have mainly comprised supervised programs often conducted at hospitals, limiting access for rural participants and capacity for sustainability. Home-based RT programs have the potential to overcome these limitations. Method: Get PHITT (Prostate Health Improved Through Training) was a 12 week, home-based RT program for men with prostate cancer. Men attended one face-to-face session to receive instruction from an exercise specialist and a home-based RT program (3 sessions/week), a behaviour-change support manual, and an elastic resistance device (Gymstick). The support manual incorporated evidence- and theory-informed behaviour change strategies aligned with social cognitive theory. The theoretical constructs operationalised within the support manual included self-efficacy, outcome expectations, social support, and intentions. We aimed to establish feasibility, acceptability and preliminary efficacy via a pilot wait-list RCT. Men (n=39) were recruited via local media and an existing prostate cancer support group. Participants provided patient-reported (quality of life, fatigue, depression/anxiety, acceptability [5 point likert scale SD-SA]) and objectively assessed (muscular strength, body composition, waist circumference, BMI, agility) data. We assessed recruitment and retention rate, and analysed RT log books to assess adherence. Results: The recruitment target was met within 3 days. The program achieved good fidelity (72%) and retention (90%). Intervention participants (n=18) reported that the program was enjoyable (χ¯=4), informative (χ¯=4.6), useful (χ¯=4.5), relevant (χ¯=4.2), that using the Gymstick was enjoyable (χ¯=4.7), and that they would recommend the program to other prostate cancer survivors (100%). Preliminary analyses identified improvements in global quality of life and muscular strength, and decreased fatigue amongst intervention participants that were not observed amongst control participants. Findings of all outcomes will be presented. Discussion: The Get PHITT program has demonstrated acceptability, feasibility and preliminary efficacy. The next step is evaluation in a fully powered trial.