First Advisor

Hayward, Reid

Document Type

Dissertation

Date Created

7-1-2016

Department

College of Natural and Health Sciences, Kinesiology Nutrition and Dietetics, KiND Student Work

Abstract

While exploring the differences in psychological and physiological fatigue among cancer survivors is not completely novel, the relationship between muscle function and perceptions of fatigue in cancer survivors remains mechanistically unclear. Furthermore, the effect of exercise on objectively measured muscular fatigue has yet to be studied in cancer patients. PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between subjective self-reported psychological fatigue measures and objectively-measured muscular fatigue in cancer survivors following a 24-week exercise intervention. METHODS: Cancer survivors were asked to complete two measures of fatigue prior to and following 12 and 24 weeks of an exercise intervention. Participants completed the revised Piper Fatigue Scale (PFS) which produces a total score (PFST) and four subscale scores. A handgrip fatigue index (HFI) was determined for each participant by repetitively squeezing a handgrip dynamometer maximally for 15 repetitions. Participants also completed 15 maximal force knee extensions at a joint velocity of 60 deg∙s-1 and a quadriceps fatigue index (QFI) was computed. RESULTS: Significant positive relationships between the HFI and PFST (r = .303; p < .001), PFSB (r = .287; p < .001), PFSA (r = .220; p < .001), PFSS (r = .352; p < .001), and PFSC (r = .301; p < .001) were observed. In addition, peak hand force (PHF) was significantly negatively correlated to PFST (r = -.177; p = .027), PFSB (r = -.209; p = .009) and PFSS (r = -.194, p = .015). Following the exercise iv intervention, significant main effects were found for PFST and all four subscales (p < .05). Results indicate significant decreases in PFST (p = .001), PFSB (p = .015), PFSA (p = .001), PFSS (p = .001), and PFSC (p = .004) following 12 weeks of the exercise intervention. Testing following 24 weeks of the intervention resulted in significant decreases in PFST (p = .031), PFSA (p = .023), and PFSS (p = .016). CONCLUSION: The lack of strong correlation between variables indicates self-reported fatigue measures may not be good predictors of fatigue at the muscular level and should therefore not be a primary determinant in exercise dose in cancer survivors.

Keywords

Cancer Rehabilitation, Fatiuge Index, Muscular Fatigue Assessment, Revised Piper Fatigue Scale

Extent

173 pages

Rights Statement

Copyright is held by the author.

Download

Share

COinS