Hayward, Reid

Committee Member

Hydock, David S. (David Scott)


Exercise Physiology


University of Northern Colorado

Type of Resources


Place of Publication

Greeley (Colo.)


University of Northern Colorado

Date Created





71 pages

Digital Origin

Born digital


The role of exercise as a primary therapy has been well documented and has the capacity to act across multiple body systems to attenuate cancer-related toxicities. To date, the Cancer Phase Training Model is the only cancer rehabilitation intervention that includes recommended modes, intensity, frequency, and duration of exercise for cancer survivors. The one-on-one model has been shown to be the most effective method of cancer rehabilitation; however the largest perceived limitation of this model is the expense of the program and its lack of scalability. By creating a structured cancer specific group model that can produce similar results to the one-on-one model, we can provide a feasible alternative rehabilitation program for cancer survivors. Purpose: To evaluate the effects of the Cancer Phase Training Model in a group setting, on cardiorespiratory endurance, muscular strength, and cancer related fatigue in cancer survivors. Methods: A total of 14 cancer survivors participated in the group model, with 12 participants completing the group model. The frequency of training was prescribed as two sessions per week for 12 weeks. The duration of each exercise session was 60 minutes with 20 minutes designated for cardiovascular exercise, 30 minutes for resistance exercise, 10 minutes for flexibility training, and with balance exercises incorporated throughout the entire session. Participants in the Group Model had a designated time in which they could exercise under the direct supervision of a Cancer Exercise Specialist. Changes in peak volume of oxygen consumption (VO2peak), muscular strength, and Cancer-Related Fatigue were observed once the 12 week intervention was completed. Percent change in VO2peak, muscular strength, and fatigue from data collected in the Individual Phase Training Model were compared to the data collected in the Group Phase Training Model. Results: After completing a 12-week intervention in the Group Model, significant improvements (p<0.05) were observed in VO2peak, leg press muscular strength (MS), chest press MS, seated row MS, and shoulder press MS, and fatigue. Although the GM was a pilot study and had a lower number of participants, similar results between GM and the IM Phase Training Model were observed in all variables. Participants completing the IM model resulted in an average 11% increase in VO2peak, while the GM resulted in an average 9% increase. Participant’s leg press strength increased by an average of 9% in the IM compared to an average 10% increase in the GM. Participant’s chest press strength increased by an average of 16% in the IM, in comparison to an average 16% increase in the GM. The mean percent change in fatigue for participants completing the IM as a 21% decrease, while the GM experienced a 36% decrease in fatigue. Conclusion: This pilot study demonstrates that the Phase Training Model protocol can be safely and effectively administrated in a group setting. By offering the Phase Training Program in a group model, healthcare professionals can have a greater impact by providing services to more cancer survivors without placing the financial burden on the survivor or the program provider. By demonstrating its diversity, the Phase Training Model should be considered as a standard of care in the clinical cancer rehabilitation setting considering its success in both the group and individual model.

Degree type


Degree Name


Local Identifiers


Rights Statement

Copyright is held by the author.