Department of Health and Exercise Science, Colorado State University, 1582 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA.
Department of Community and Behavioral Health, Colorado School of Public Health at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Support Care Cancer. 2019 May;27(5):1601-1612. doi: 10.1007/s00520-019-04670-y. Epub 2019 Feb 9.
To increase physical activity (PA), interventions based on group dynamics may be superior to interventions that target aggregates of people but do not have formal strategies to enhance cohesion. This review examined the extent to which group dynamics processes have been integrated within exercise and/or PA interventions in cancer survivors, and explored the implementation and effectiveness of these interventions for increasing PA.
A systematic review was conducted of English articles published January 2005-March 13, 2017 using the electronic databases PsycINFO, CINAHL, and PubMed Medline (National Library of Medicine). Studies in adult cancer survivors that had a controlled or uncontrolled experimental design, included face-to-face exercise, had a group-based component, and reported PA pre- and post-intervention were included. Self-reported PA effect sizes were estimated for pre- to post-intervention, separately for studies that implemented ≥ 1 group dynamics strategy versus none.
Twenty-three studies were reviewed, 34.8% (n = 8) included ≥ 1 group dynamics strategy (M = 1.6 ± 0.7, range = 1-3). Most interventions were delivered in a healthcare or rehabilitation setting by an exercise professional, and face-to-face exercise dose ranged from 72.0-6000.0 min. PA effect size ranged from 0.3-1.2 for studies that implemented ≥ 1 group dynamics strategy versus 0.4-2.4 for those with none. Studies reviewed lacked detailed examples of group dynamics strategies, and none measured group cohesion.
The additional benefit of group dynamics-based interventions for increasing PA in cancer survivors remains unclear. More research is needed to enhance the generalizability of face-to-face exercise interventions, and determine how to maximize the potential of including group dynamics strategies.
为了增加身体活动（PA），基于群体动态的干预措施可能优于针对人群但没有正式策略来增强凝聚力的干预措施。本研究旨在评估群体动力学过程在癌症幸存者运动和/或 PA 干预中的融入程度，并探讨这些干预措施对增加 PA 的实施和效果。
使用电子数据库 PsycINFO、CINAHL 和 PubMed Medline（美国国立医学图书馆），对 2005 年 1 月至 2017 年 3 月 13 日发表的英文文章进行了系统评价。纳入了有对照或非对照实验设计、包含面对面运动、有基于群体的组成部分、并报告干预前后 PA 的成年癌症幸存者研究。对于实施了≥1 种群体动力学策略与未实施的研究，分别估计了从干预前到干预后的自我报告 PA 效果大小。
共审查了 23 项研究，其中 34.8%（n=8）研究中包含了≥1 种群体动力学策略（M=1.6±0.7，范围=1-3）。大多数干预措施是由运动专业人员在医疗保健或康复环境中进行的，面对面运动剂量范围为 72.0-6000.0 分钟。对于实施了≥1 种群体动力学策略的研究，PA 效果大小范围为 0.3-1.2，而对于没有实施的研究，PA 效果大小范围为 0.4-2.4。所审查的研究缺乏群体动力学策略的详细示例，也没有测量群体凝聚力。
群体动力学为基础的干预措施对增加癌症幸存者 PA 的额外益处尚不清楚。需要进一步研究以增强面对面运动干预措施的普遍性，并确定如何最大限度地发挥纳入群体动力学策略的潜力。
