4.6 Article

Exercise experiences in patients with metastatic lung cancer: A qualitative approach

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230188

关键词

-

资金

  1. Taichung Veterans General Hospital Research Program in Taiwan [TCVGH-997415B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Patients with metastatic lung cancer can have severe cancer-related symptoms and treatment-induced side effects. Exercise is beneficial for patients with metastatic lung cancer; however, little information is available on guiding patients how to perform exercise during hospitalization. The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand exercise experiences in patients with metastatic lung cancer. Methods Patients with metastatic lung cancer (n = 24) participated in face-to-face in-depth interviews at an inpatient ward of a medical center in central Taiwan. Interview transcripts were evaluated using narrative analysis to extract and validate themes. Results Three primary themes were identified: (1) modifying exercise to maximize physical functions; (2) living with symptoms and frustration, but still exercising; and (3) doing exercise to sustain hopes, inner power, and life. Secondary findings included: (1) adopting walking as their main form of exercise because of its convenience; and (2) among patients with severe symptoms, adjusting exercise towards shorter time durations and shorter distances, slower speeds, and higher frequencies. Conclusions The study found physically active lung cancer patients, although with metastatic condition, adjusted their exercise activities to balance disease and treatment-induced deteriorations and boost themselves to feel hope and fight for cancer. However, the results may not be applicable to physically inactive patients. Future research to explore experiences from those with even worse physical conditions and further helping them to take some mild exercise to enhance the positive side of cancer experiences are suggested.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据