Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33023538›Full record

Trial reportBMC cancer2020

Translating research into practice: outcomes from the Healthy Living after Cancer partnership project.

Elizabeth G Eakin, Marina M Reeves, Ana D Goode, Elisabeth A H Winkler, Janette L Vardy, Frances Boyle, Marion R Haas, Janet E Hiller, Gita D Mishra, Michael Jefford and 17 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IV
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Does adding coaching calls into an online lifestyle intervention for cancer survivors make it more acceptable and feasible than a self-guided version?Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Modality preferences for health behaviour interventions for post-treatment cancer survivors: a theoretical investigation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors at 15 institutions in 3 countries.

Elizabeth G EakinThe University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. e.eakin@uq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8835-9995
Marina M ReevesThe University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Ana D GoodeThe University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Elisabeth A H WinklerThe University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Janette L VardyUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Frances BoyleUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Marion R HaasUniversity of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Janet E HillerSwinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Gita D MishraThe University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Michael JeffordPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Bogda KoczwaraFlinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Christobel M SaundersUniversity of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Kathy ChapmanUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Liz HingCancer Council New South Wales, Woolloomooloo, Australia.
Anna G BoltongUniversity of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia.
Katherine LaneCancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Polly BaldwinCancer Council South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Lesley MillarUniversity of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Sandy McKiernanCancer Council Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Wendy Demark-WahnefriedUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, USA.
Kerry S CourneyaUniversity of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Jennifer JobThe University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Natasha ReidThe University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Erin RobsonThe University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Nicole MorettoThe University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Louisa GordonQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Sandra C HayesGriffith University, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
The University of Queensland · AUThe University of Sydney · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUThe University of Western Australia · AUCancer Council NSW · AUCancer Council SA · AUCancer Council Victoria · AUCancer Council Western Australia · AUFlinders University · AUGriffith University · AUQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute · AUSwinburne University of Technology · AUUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

Why is the prevalence of obesity so high in U.S. Southern States? Regional predictors of BMI and obesity treatment response.P30DK056336 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI BARBARA A GOWER · 2000 to 2026
$31.9M
National Health and Medical Research Council APP10743456NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK056336
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthy Living after Cancer (HLaC) was a national dissemination and implementation study of an evidence-based lifestyle intervention for cancer survivors. The program was imbedded into existing telephone cancer information and support services delivered by Australian state-based Cancer Councils (CC). We report here the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the program.

methodsIn this phase IV study (single-group, pre-post design) participants - survivors of any type of cancer, following treatment with curative intent - received up to 12 nurse/allied health professional-led telephone health coaching calls over 6 months. Intervention delivery was grounded in motivational interviewing, with emphasis on evidence-based behaviour change strategies. Using the RE-AIM evaluation framework, primary outcomes were reach, indicators of program adoption, implementation, costs and maintenance. Secondary (effectiveness) outcomes were participant-reported anthropometric, behavioural and psychosocial variables including: weight; physical activity; dietary intake; quality-of-life; treatment side-effects; distress; and fear of cancer recurrence and participant satisfaction. Changes were evaluated using linear mixed models, including terms for timepoint (0/6 months), strata (Cancer Council), and timepoint x strata.

resultsFour of 5 CCs approached participated in the study. In total, 1183 cancer survivors were referred (mostly via calls to the Cancer Council telephone information service). Of these, 90.4% were eligible and 88.7% (n = 791) of those eligible consented to participate. Retention rate was 63.4%. Participants were mostly female (88%), aged 57 years and were overweight (BMI = 28.8 ± 6.5 kg/m2). Improvements in all participant-reported outcomes (standardised effect sizes of 0.1 to 0.6) were observed (p < 0.001). The program delivery costs were on average AU$427 (US$296) per referred cancer survivor.

conclusionsThis telephone-delivered lifestyle intervention, which was feasibly implemented by Cancer Councils, led to meaningful and statistically significant improvements in cancer survivors' health and quality-of-life at a relatively low cost.

trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) - ACTRN12615000882527 (registered on 24/08/2015).

Indexed as

FemaleHealthy LifestyleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeCancer survivorsDissemination and implementation studyHealthy weightLifestyle interventionNutritionPhysical activity

Identifiers

PMID33023538
PMCPMC7539431
OpenAlexW3092398267

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.