Identification and predictors of physical activity barriers among gynaecological cancer survivors, and association with physical activity levels — ASN Events
  1. Schedule
  2. Epidemiology
  3. Posters - Epidemiology
  4. Identification and predictors of physical activity barriers among gynaecological cancer survivors, and association with physical activity levels

Identification and predictors of physical activity barriers among gynaecological cancer survivors, and association with physical activity levels (#252)

Laal Farrokhzadi 1 , Haryana Dhillon 2 , Jane Young 1 , Chris Goumas 1 , Anne Cust 1
  1. Cancer Epidemiology and Services Research, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  2. Centre for Medical Psychology & Evidence-based Decision-making, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia

Aim: To identify perceived barriers of physical activity, and their predictors, among gynaecological cancer survivors, and to determine if the reported barriers were associated with physical activity levels.

Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was completed by 101 women diagnosed with gynaecological cancer within the previous two years, and whose clinical care was managed at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital or the Royal Hospital for Women, Sydney. We included questions on 13 individual potential barriers, scored on a 5-point scale. These barriers were also grouped into four subscales: physical environment, social environment, personal attributes and disease-specific. Associations between barriers and last 7-days physical activity (total mins/week) were assessed using Spearman correlations (rho). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using multivariate logistic regression.

Results: Disease-specific barriers were perceived as the greatest obstacles to being more physically active, and these barriers were associated with lower post-diagnosis physical activity levels (rho= -0.21, p=0.03). Other individual barriers that were significantly inversely correlated with physical activity included ‘lack of interest’ (rho -0.26 p =0.01), and ‘never been active’ (rho = -0.23, p=0.03). In a multivariate model, personal attribute barriers and physical environment barriers were weakly inversely associated with ‘sufficient’ physical activity (≥ 150 mins/week): OR 0.93 (95% CI 0.85-1.01) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.73-1.03), respectively. Predictors of physical environment barrier scores were ‘not working’ (OR 0.11, p=0.03) and ‘overweight’ (OR 7.0, p=0.02). Ovarian cancer survivors had greater personal attribute barriers (OR 3.9, p=0.05) and disease-specific barriers (OR 6.5, p=0.03) compared with other gynaecological cancers, and chemotherapy and radiation treatment were also strongly associated with greater disease-specific barriers (OR 13.5, p=0.005).

Conclusion: These findings will assist in developing strategies for reducing barriers to physical activity among gynaecological cancer survivors.