Premium
Feasibility and acceptability of a home‐based resistance training intervention in adolescent and young adult hematopoietic cell transplant survivors
Author(s) -
Ketterl Tyler G.,
Ballard Sheri,
Bradford Miranda C.,
Chow Eric J.,
Jenssen Kari,
Myers Sam,
Rosenberg Abby R.,
Van Doren Matt,
Baker K. Scott
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
pediatric blood and cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.116
H-Index - 105
eISSN - 1545-5017
pISSN - 1545-5009
DOI - 10.1002/pbc.29206
Subject(s) - medicine , intervention (counseling) , physical therapy , coaching , motivational interviewing , anthropometry , young adult , resistance training , nursing , management , economics
Background Adolescent and young adult (AYA) hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) survivors are at increased risk of metabolic syndrome and lean body mass (LBM) deficits. Resistance training (RT) is a potential intervention to improve LBM, metabolic fitness, and reduce risk of cardiovascular disease. Procedure Eligible participants ages 13–39 years, 80–120 days post‐HCT, transfusion independent, and prednisone dose ≤1 mg/kg/day were approached. Baseline assessments of body composition (DXA), anthropometrics, and strength testing were completed and participants were taught a 12‐week, home‐based RT intervention with weekly remote coaching. Follow‐up assessments were at day +200 (FU1) and +365 post‐HCT (FU2). Feasibility targets were (a) 60% enrollment of approached patients, (b) 80% completion of weekly phone calls, and (c) 80% completion of the RT intervention and FU1 assessments. Acceptability was based on positive responses in qualitative interviews. Results Twenty of 31 (65%) eligible AYAs enrolled. Three participants failed to complete baseline measurements (2 = scheduling barriers, 1 = passive refusal) and four participants who completed baseline assessments did not receive the intervention (1 = medical reasons, 2 = no longer interested). Of those who completed baseline assessments, 13 received the intervention, completed 88.5% of coaching calls, and 11 (65%) completed FU1. LBM (kg) increased or remained unchanged in nine of nine participants with complete body composition data at FU1 (mean 1.1 kg; 95%CI: 0.4, 1.9). All participants who completed FU1 reported they would recommend the intervention to an AYA HCT survivor. Conclusions A home‐based RT intervention in AYA HCT survivors early post HCT is both feasible and acceptable and may maintain or increase LBM.