% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Goldschmidt:285994,
      author       = {S. Goldschmidt$^*$ and M. Schmidt$^*$ and F. Rosenberger
                      and J. Wiskemann and K. Steindorf$^*$},
      title        = {{M}aintenance of {A}erobic or {R}esistance {T}raining
                      {A}fter an {E}xercise {I}ntervention {A}mong {B}reast
                      {C}ancer {P}atients {A}fter {N}eoadjuvant {C}hemotherapy},
      journal      = {Journal of physical activity and health},
      volume       = {21},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {1543-3080},
      address      = {Champaign, Ill.},
      publisher    = {Human Kinetics Publ.},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2023-02575},
      pages        = {11-21},
      year         = {2024},
      note         = {#EA:C110#LA:C110#},
      abstract     = {Background: Exercise interventions have been shown to be
                      beneficial for cancer patients regarding various
                      treatment-related side effects and quality of life. For
                      sustainable effects, patients should continue the training.
                      Therefore, we investigated the maintenance of an exercise
                      training in breast cancer patients, reasons for
                      (dis)continuation, and explored possible influencing
                      factors. Methods: The investigation is based on a 3-arm
                      randomized intervention trial comparing aerobic and
                      resistance training (19 [4]) during or after neoadjuvant
                      chemotherapy among breast cancer patients. About 2 years
                      after breast surgery, 68 patients (age 52 [11] y) provided
                      information about training continuation, self-reported
                      reasons of (dis)continuation, sociodemographics, employment
                      status, age, and body mass index. Training continuation was
                      investigated with Kaplan–Meier analyses. Results: The
                      intervention was rated as good or very good by $88.1\%$ of
                      participants. Nevertheless, $52.9\%$ discontinued the
                      training directly, but half of them changed to different
                      types of exercise. Reasons for discontinuation included lack
                      of time and long travel distance to the training facility.
                      The median continuation was 19.0 months (Q1, Q3: 5.5, 36.0)
                      with no statistically significant difference between the
                      intervention groups. Younger, better educated, partnered
                      patients tended toward longer training continuation.
                      Conclusions: The majority of patients continued exercising
                      after the end of intervention. However, a nonnegligible
                      number discontinued training immediately or after few
                      months. Practical, social, and financial support for a
                      transition to an adequate training that is affordable and
                      feasible in the patient’s daily life might foster training
                      maintenance. Especially patients who are less educated,
                      elderly, or living alone may need more support to continue
                      exercising.},
      cin          = {C110},
      ddc          = {796},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)C110-20160331},
      pnm          = {313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:37917983},
      doi          = {10.1123/jpah.2023-0054},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/285994},
}