4.2 Article

Effect of the exercise programme on the quality of life of prostate cancer survivors: A randomized controlled trial

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ijn.12883

关键词

community care; exercise programme; nursing; physical activity; prostate cancer; quality of life; self-management approach

类别

资金

  1. Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran [IR.TUMS.FNM.REC.1396.2209]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that an exercise programme can significantly improve the quality of life of prostate cancer survivors, particularly in physical, role, emotional, social, and sexual functions. Therefore, nurses are recommended to actively plan and promote such exercise programmes.
Aim The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the exercise programme on the quality of life of prostate cancer (PCa) survivors. Methods A randomized controlled, parallel trial was conducted from April 2017 to January 2018 on 80 PCa survivors. They were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups (n= 40 in each group). The exercise programme was designed based on the self-management approach (SMA). The intervention group participated in a 12-week exercise programme consisting of one session of group exercise and three sessions of individual exercise per week using exercise facilities in the community. Data were collected using the quality of life questionnaires and the follow-up checklist. Results In the intervention group, statistically significant improvements in physical, role, emotional, social and sexual functions were reported. Also, the patients in this group reported reduced fatigue, insomnia, constipation, diarrhoea, urinary, bowel and hormonal treatment-related symptoms in comparison with before the exercise programme (p< 0.05). Conclusions Nurses are suggested to plan for improving the participation of PCa survivors in exercise programmes using exercise facilities in the community in order to reduce the complications of treatment and improve their quality of life.

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

4.2
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