Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Community pharmacy lifestyle intervention to increase physical activity and improve cardiovascular health of men with prostate cancer: a phase II feasibility study
  1. Agnieszka Lemanska1,
  2. Karen Poole1,
  3. Bruce A Griffin2,
  4. Ralph Manders3,
  5. John M Saxton4,
  6. Lauren Turner5,
  7. Joe Wainwright6,
  8. Sara Faithfull1
  1. 1 School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
  2. 2 Department of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
  3. 3 School of Biosciences and Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
  4. 4 Department of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
  5. 5 Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust, Frimley, UK
  6. 6 Surrey Human Performance Institute, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
  1. Correspondence to Agnieszka Lemanska; a.lemanska{at}


Objectives To assess the feasibility and acceptability of a community pharmacy lifestyle intervention to improve physical activity and cardiovascular health of men with prostate cancer. To refine the intervention.

Design Phase II feasibility study of a complex intervention.

Setting Nine community pharmacies in the UK.

Intervention Community pharmacy teams were trained to deliver a health assessment including fitness, strength and anthropometric measures. A computer algorithm generated a personalised lifestyle prescription for a home-based programme accompanied by supporting resources. The health assessment was repeated 12 weeks later and support phone calls were provided at weeks 1 and 6.

Participants 116 men who completed treatment for prostate cancer.

Outcome measures The feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and the delivery model were assessed by evaluating study processes (rate of participant recruitment, consent, retention and adverse events), by analysing delivery data and semi-structured interviews with participants and by focus groups with pharmacy teams. Physical activity (measured with accelerometry at baseline, 3 and 6 months) and patient reported outcomes (activation, dietary intake and quality of life) were evaluated. Change in physical activity was used to inform the sample size calculations for a future trial.

Results Out of 403 invited men, 172 (43%) responded and 116 (29%) participated. Of these, 99 (85%) completed the intervention and 88 (76%) completed the 6-month follow-up (attrition 24%). Certain components of the intervention were feasible and acceptable (eg, community pharmacy delivery), while others were more challenging (eg, fitness assessment) and will be refined for future studies. By 3 months, moderate to vigorous physical activity increased on average by 34 min (95% CI 6 to 62, p=0.018), but this was not sustained over 6 months.

Conclusions The community pharmacy intervention was feasible and acceptable. Results are encouraging and warrant a definitive trial to assess the effectiveness of the refined intervention.

  • prostate cancer
  • lifestyle intervention
  • physical activity
  • community pharmacy
  • survivorship
  • feasibility

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:

View Full Text

Statistics from


  • Contributors AL, KP and SF drafted most of this manuscript. All authors contributed to the manuscript, data analysis and interpretation. SF was Principal Investigator. AL coordinated engagement with community pharmacies, implemented the web-based algorithm and was a lead author. KP was the project manager and coordinated ethical approvals. JS, RM and JW supported the project with expertise in exercise physiology. BG and LT provided expertise in nutrition.

  • Funding This study (NIHR/UKCRN ID 20874) was funded by the Movember Foundation, in partnership with Prostate Cancer UK, as part of the global True NTH programme, grant number 250-20 and was supported by the NIHR Clinical Research Network.

  • Competing interests SF is a trustee of Prostate Cancer UK. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

  • Ethics approval The NHS Health Research Authority South Central-Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee gave a favourable ethical opinion for this study (16/SC/0069). Research governance assurance was provided by Wessex Primary Care Research Support Service (IRAS ID 193263, 4 April 2016) and permission gained from each community pharmacy contractor hosting the study.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement Data from this study are available on request.

  • Patient consent for publication Obtained.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.