Outcome
| Type |
Measure |
Description |
Time frame |
Safety issue |
| Primary |
Retention |
Number of evaluable participants who completed end-of-intervention assessments |
From the time of enrollment up to 3 months end-of-intervention assessments |
|
| Primary |
Exercise Adherence |
Number of participants who completed end-of-intervention assessments and completed at least 18 of 24 prescribed training sessions. |
From the time of enrollment up to completion of 12 week exercise intervention |
|
| Primary |
Frequency of Related Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) |
Number of participants that experienced exercise-related SAEs |
From the time of enrollment up to completion of 12 week exercise intervention |
|
| Secondary |
Individualized Progressive Resistance Training (PRT) Prescriptions |
Number of participants who received an individualized PRT prescription developed for the participant by the study exercise physiologist. |
From the time of enrollment up to completion of 12 week exercise intervention |
|
| Secondary |
Mean Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) - Cancer Physical Function Score Value |
The PROMIS-Cancer assessment consists of 45 questions pertaining to physical function, each of which are designed as having five-point ordinal rating scales. Participants are asked to respond to questions regarding the extent of their physical function. Responses range from 1 to 5, where 1 represents "unable to do" and 5 represents "without any difficulty." Each PROMIS assessment generates a T-score, which is a standardized score with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10 in a reference population of cancer patients, i.e., a score of 40 is one SD lower than the mean of the reference population. A PROMIS-Cancer Physical Function score less than 50 indicates patient-reported physical function worse than the cancer patient mean. The PROMIS T-scores are summarized with mean and standard deviation, with comparison of scores at baseline and at 3 months using paired t-Test to determine if a 3-month resistance training program improves physical function. |
Baseline up to completion of 12 week exercise intervention |
|
| Secondary |
Change in Short Form-36 Physical Function Score |
The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) consists of a set of generic, quality-of-life measures to survey physical function in the general population. Responses range from 0 - 100, with a higher score indicating a more favorable health state. Will be summarized as mean and standard deviation. Will also compare scores at baseline and at 3 months using paired t-Test to determine if a 3-month resistance training program improves physical function. |
Baseline up to completion of 12 week exercise intervention |
|
| Secondary |
Change in Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire Physical Activity Score (GLTEQ) |
To score the GLTEQ, the weekly frequencies of strenuous, moderate, and light activities are multiplied by nine, five, and three, respectively. Total weekly leisure activity is calculated in arbitrary units by summing the products of the separate components as shown in the following formula: Weekly leisure activity score = (9xStrenuous) + (5x Moderate) + (3xLight). Responses range from 0 - greater than 24, with 0 indicating no activity and a higher score indicating more activities (no maximum score). GLTEQ will be summarized as mean and standard deviation. Will also compare scores at baseline and at 3 months using paired t-Test to determine if a 3-month resistance training program improves physical function. |
Baseline up to completion of 12 week exercise intervention |
|
| Secondary |
Change in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue Score (FACT-F) |
Fatigue was assessed using the FACT-F scale. This is a 13 item, uni-dimensional, 5-point Likert scale, measuring physical fatigue over the past week. The scale has high internal consistency and is widely used in the literature. Responses range from 0 - 52, with a higher score indicating more fatigue. FACT-F will be summarized as mean and standard deviation. Will also compare scores at baseline and at 3 months using paired t-Test to determine if a 3-month resistance training program improves physical function. |
Baseline up to completion of 12 week exercise intervention |
|
| Secondary |
Difference in 1-repetition Maximum (Kilogram) |
Compare scores at baseline and at 3 months using paired t-Test to determine if a 3-month resistance training program improves physical function. Will initially examine distribution of each outcome variable using Shapiro-Wilk test, as well as data visualization techniques as standard practice. Will consider transforming the data or adopting non-parametric approaches if normality assumption is violated. |
Baseline up to completion of 12 week exercise intervention |
|
| Secondary |
Change in Short Physical Performance Battery Score |
Compare scores at baseline and at 3 months using paired t-Test to determine if a 3-month resistance training program improves physical function. Will initially examine distribution of each outcome variable using Shapiro-Wilk test, as well as data visualization techniques as standard practice. Will consider transforming the data or adopting non-parametric approaches if normality assumption is violated |
Baseline up to completion of 12 week exercise intervention |
|
| Secondary |
Change in Grip Strength (Kilogram) |
Compare scores at baseline and at 3 months using paired t-Test to determine if a 3-month resistance training program improves physical function. Will initially examine distribution of each outcome variable using Shapiro-Wilk test, as well as data visualization techniques as standard practice. Will consider transforming the data or adopting non-parametric approaches if normality assumption is violated |
Baseline up to completion of 12 week exercise intervention |
|
| Secondary |
Change in Gait and Balance |
Measured by mobile sensor. Will compare scores at baseline and at 3 months using paired t-Test to determine if a 3-month resistance training program improves physical function. Will initially examine distribution of each outcome variable using Shapiro-Wilk test, as well as data visualization techniques as standard practice. Will consider transforming the data or adopting non-parametric approaches if normality assumption is violated |
Baseline up to completion of 12 week exercise intervention |
|
| Secondary |
Change in Instrumented 6-minute Walk Test |
Compare scores at baseline and at 3 months using paired t-Test to determine if a 3-month resistance training program improves physical function. Will initially examine distribution of each outcome variable using Shapiro-Wilk test, as well as data visualization techniques as standard practice. Will consider transforming the data or adopting non-parametric approaches if normality assumption is violated |
Baseline up to completion of 12 week exercise intervention |
|
| Secondary |
Change in Instrumented Postural Sway |
Compare scores at baseline and at 3 months using paired t-Test to determine if a 3-month resistance training program improves physical function. Will initially examine distribution of each outcome variable using Shapiro-Wilk test, as well as data visualization techniques as standard practice. Will consider transforming the data or adopting non-parametric approaches if normality assumption is violated |
Baseline up to completion of 12 week exercise intervention |
|
| Secondary |
Change in Instrumented Timed up and go Test |
Compare scores at baseline and at 3 months using paired t-Test to determine if a 3-month resistance training program improves physical function. Will initially examine distribution of each outcome variable using Shapiro-Wilk test, as well as data visualization techniques as standard practice. Will consider transforming the data or adopting non-parametric approaches if normality assumption is violated |
Baseline up to completion of 12 week exercise intervention |
|