Nursing
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/24
Browse
3 results
Search Results
Item A randomized, feasibility trial of an exercise and nutrition‐based rehabilitation programme (ENeRgy) in people with cancer(Wiley, 2021-10-05) Hall, Charlie C.; Skipworth, Richard J.E.; Blackwood, Honor; Brown, Duncan; Cook, Jane; Diernberger, Katharina; Dixon, Elizabeth; Gibson, Valerie; Graham, Catriona; Hall, Peter; Haraldsdottir, Erna; Hopkinson, Jane; Lloyd, Anna; Maddocks, Matthew; Norris, Lucy; Tuck, Sharon; Fallon, Marie T.; Laird, Barry J.A.Background: Despite rehabilitation being increasingly advocated for people living with incurable cancer, there is limited evidence supporting efficacy or component parts. The progressive decline in function and nutritional in this population would support an approach that targets these factors. This trial aimed to assess the feasibility of an exercise and nutrition based rehabilitation programme in people with incurable cancer. Methods: We randomized community dwelling adults with incurable cancer to either a personalized exercise and nutrition based programme (experimental arm) or standard care (control arm) for 8 weeks. Endpoints included feasibility, quality of life, physical activity (step count), and body weight. Qualitative and health economic analyses were also included. Results: Forty‐five patients were recruited (23 experimental arm, 22 control arm). There were 26 men (58%), and the median age was 78 years (IQR 69–84). At baseline, the median BMI was 26 kg/m2 (IQR: 22–29), and median weight loss in the previous 6 months was 5% (IQR: −12% to 0%). Adherence to the experimental arm was >80% in 16/21 (76%) patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the following between trial arms: step count − median % change from baseline to endpoint, per trial arm (experimental −18.5% [IQR: −61 to 65], control 5% [IQR: −32 to 50], P = 0.548); weight − median % change from baseline to endpoint, per trial arm (experimental 1%[IQR: −3 to 3], control −0.5% [IQR: −3 to 1], P = 0.184); overall quality of life − median % change from baseline to endpoint, per trial arm (experimental 0% [IQR: −20 to 19], control 0% [IQR: −23 to 33], P = 0.846). Qualitative findings observed themes of capability, opportunity, and motivation amongst patients in the experimental arm. The mean incremental cost of the experimental arm versus control was £‐319.51 [CI −7593.53 to 6581.91], suggesting the experimental arm was less costly. Conclusions: An exercise and nutritional rehabilitation intervention is feasible and has potential benefits for people with incurable cancer. A larger trial is now warranted to test the efficacy of this approach.Item A systematic review examining nutrition support interventions in patients with incurable cancer(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2019-07-29) Blackwood, Honor A.; Hall, Charlie C.; Balstad, Trude R.; Solheim, Tora S.; Fallon, Marie T.; Haraldsdottir, Erna; Laird, Barry J.Purpose: Recent guidelines by the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) have advocated increased attention to nutritional support in all patients with cancer: however, little is known about the optimal type of nutritional intervention. The aim of this review was to assess the current evidence for nutrition support in patients with incurable cancer. Methods: This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. EMBASE, Medline and CINAHL were searched from 1990-2018. Evidence was appraised using a modified risk of bias table, based on guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Results: Sixty studies were assessed of which twelve met the eligibility criteria. Eleven studies examined body composition, with six studies reporting improvements in weight. Six studies examined nutritional status with three studies reporting an improvement. Nine studies examined nutritional intake with six showing improvements including significant improvements in dietary and protein intake. Ten studies examined quality of life, with six studies reporting improvements following intervention. The most common nutritional interventions examined were nutrition counselling and dietary supplementation. Conclusions: There is moderate quality evidence to support the need for increased attention to nutrition support in patients with incurable cancer; however, despite some statistically significant results being reported the clinical effects of them were small. Key questions remain as to the optimal timing for these interventions to be implemented (e.g. cachexia stage, illness stage, timing with anticancer therapy) and the most appropriate endpoint measures.Item A randomised, phase II, unblinded trial of an Exercise and Nutrition-based Rehabilitation programme (ENeRgy) versus standard care in patients with cancer: Feasibility trial protocol(BioMed Central, 2018-12-27) Hall, Charlie C.; Norris, Lucy; Dixon, Liz; Cook, Jane; Maddocks, Matthew; Graham, Catriona; Tuck, Sharon; Haraldsdottir, Erna; Brown, Duncan; Lloyd, Anna; Finucane, Anne; Hall, Peter; Diernberger, Katharina; Skipworth, Richard J. E.; Fallon, Marie T.; Laird, Barry J.Patients are living longer with incurable cancer [1] such that in many cases, cancer is likened to a chronic disease [2, 3, 4]. This development has wide-ranging implications for both patients and wider society, with increased longevity comes increased morbidity and associated socio-economic burden [5, 6]. Primary cost drivers for patients with advanced cancer are hospitalisation, GP and domiciliary visits [7]. Rehabilitation has been advocated as one such way of optimising the function and quality of life in this group of patients [8]; however, the optimal components of a rehabilitation model for patients with incurable cancer remain to be elucidated...