Safety and Feasibility of Long‐Term High‐Intensity Interval Training With and Without Peer Support in Cancer Survivors

Despite the benefits of physical activity and exercise, including high-intensity interval training (HIIT), few cancer survivors meet the exercise oncology guidelines. Emerging evidence suggests peer support (i.e., assistance from individuals with lived experiences trained in behavior change techniques) may improve exercise adherence, yet its long-term safety and feasibility remain unclear. This study evaluates the safety and feasibility of 12 months of HIIT, with and without peer support, in cancer survivors. Breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors completed 4 weeks (12 sessions) of supervised HIIT before being randomized to receive weekly peer support from people with lived experience of a cancer diagnosis (HIIT+PS) or no peer support (HIIT-Only) for 12 months. Both groups were provided 12 months of free access to local gymnasiums. Safety (adverse and severe adverse events) and feasibility (recruitment, attrition, attendance, adherence to intensity, duration, mode, peer supporter contact) were compared to a priori criteria. The a priori criterion was met for recruitment rate (38%) of study participants (n = 137). Peer supporters (n = 32) contacted participants 0.8 ± 0.5 times/week (n = 40 contacts/participant), preferring text messaging (50%) or face-to-face (41%) contacts, meeting the a priori criterion (0.77 contacts/week). Both groups met the a priori criteria for safety (n = 0 severe and n = 7 (0.5%) Grade 1/2 adverse events), duration, and mode, but not attendance or intensity across the full 12 months. A priori criterion for study attrition was met in the intervention group (23.7%) but not the HIIT-Only group (30.8%). Twelve months of HIIT with and without peer support was safe with participants meeting the prescribed duration, and mode, but not attendance or intensity. Peer support provided weekly for four of every 5 weeks appears insufficient to improve HIIT feasibility. Peer supporters preferred to provide contact via text messaging or face-to-face interactions. Future studies should explore strategies to improve long-term HIIT frequency and intensity adherence. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry 12 618 001 855 213. Registered 14 November 2018. Trial registration includes all components of the WHO Trial Registration Data Set, as recommended by the ICMJE.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports
Published
2026-02-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.70221
Primary Topic
Cancer survivorship and care
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Safety and Feasibility of Long‐Term High‐Intensity Interval Training With and Without Peer Support in Cancer Survivors

Suzanne K. Chambers, Kate A. Bolam, Dr Chloe Salisbury, Kerry S. Courneya et al.
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports
Cancer survivorship and care
article

Safety and Feasibility of Long‐Term High‐Intensity Interval Training With and Without Peer Support in Cancer Survivors

Suzanne K. Chambers, Kate A. Bolam, Dr Chloe Salisbury, Kerry S. Courneya, David G Jenkins, Jeff C Dunn, Alexander N Boytar, Joanne F Aitken, Tina L Skinner, Morgan J Farley, Danielle K Pegg, Kirsten N Adlard
article en

Abstract

Despite the benefits of physical activity and exercise, including high-intensity interval training (HIIT), few cancer survivors meet the exercise oncology guidelines. Emerging evidence suggests peer support (i.e., assistance from individuals with lived experiences trained in behavior change techniques) may improve exercise adherence, yet its long-term safety and feasibility remain unclear. This study evaluates the safety and feasibility of 12 months of HIIT, with and without peer support, in cancer survivors. Breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors completed 4 weeks (12 sessions) of supervised HIIT before being randomized to receive weekly peer support from people with lived experience of a cancer diagnosis (HIIT+PS) or no peer support (HIIT-Only) for 12 months. Both groups were provided 12 months of free access to local gymnasiums. Safety (adverse and severe adverse events) and feasibility (recruitment, attrition, attendance, adherence to intensity, duration, mode, peer supporter contact) were compared to a priori criteria. The a priori criterion was met for recruitment rate (38%) of study participants (n = 137). Peer supporters (n = 32) contacted participants 0.8 ± 0.5 times/week (n = 40 contacts/participant), preferring text messaging (50%) or face-to-face (41%) contacts, meeting the a priori criterion (0.77 contacts/week). Both groups met the a priori criteria for safety (n = 0 severe and n = 7 (0.5%) Grade 1/2 adverse events), duration, and mode, but not attendance or intensity across the full 12 months. A priori criterion for study attrition was met in the intervention group (23.7%) but not the HIIT-Only group (30.8%). Twelve months of HIIT with and without peer support was safe with participants meeting the prescribed duration, and mode, but not attendance or intensity. Peer support provided weekly for four of every 5 weeks appears insufficient to improve HIIT feasibility. Peer supporters preferred to provide contact via text messaging or face-to-face interactions. Future studies should explore strategies to improve long-term HIIT frequency and intensity adherence. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry 12 618 001 855 213. Registered 14 November 2018. Trial registration includes all components of the WHO Trial Registration Data Set, as recommended by the ICMJE.

Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in SportsVol. 36(2)
University of Technology Sydney (AU), Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia (AU), Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute (AU), University of Alberta (CA), Queensland University of Technology (AU), The University of Queensland (AU), University of the Sunshine Coast (AU), University of Toronto (CA), University of Southern Queensland (AU), Cancer Council Queensland (AU), National Heart Foundation of Australia (AU), Park Centre for Mental Health (AU), UNSW Sydney (AU), Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences (SE), Melbourne Health (AU), Australian Catholic University (AU)
Good health and well-being, Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 62%
Cancer survivorship and care
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.