Examining the Priorities, Needs and Preferences of Men with Metastatic Prostate Cancer in Designing a Personalised eHealth Exercise Intervention

'People don't get cancer, families do': Co-development of a social physical activity intervention for people recently affected by a cancer diagnosis

OBJECTIVE

This research took a co-design approach to develop a social intervention to support people affected by a cancer diagnosis to be physically active.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with five key stakeholder groups: (1) adults with a recent breast or prostate cancer diagnosis; (2) family and friends of cancer patients; (3) healthcare professionals; (4) physical activity providers; and (5) cancer charity representatives. Inductive content analysis was used to identify themes in the data. We then worked with a subset of participants to co-develop the intervention.

RESULTS

Participants welcomed the idea of a social approach to a physical activity intervention. Input was received on the timing and format of delivery, how to communicate about physical activity to cancer patients and their family and friends and the types of physical activity that would be appropriate. Our findings suggest that interventions need to be flexible in terms of timing and delivery and offer a wide range of physical activity options. These findings directly informed the co-development of 'All Together Active'.

CONCLUSION

All Together Active is designed to support cancer patients and their family and friends to be active throughout treatment and beyond, benefiting their physical and mental health.

eHealth-Based Interventions for Older Patients with Prostate Cancer: A Quick Review of the Literature

Background

The prevalence of prostate cancer (PC) is higher in older adults. Due to early diagnosis and treatment, there is an increase in the survival rate of these patients. The survival of patients with PC imposes the need for specific and effective care strategies.

Objective

To identify and analyze eHealth intervention programs for older adults with PC.

Methods

A quick review of evidence from the current literature was employed to address the objective of the study. The recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group were used. The PubMed, Embase, Capes Journals, and Lilacs-BVS databases were searched, covering studies published from January 2010 to July 2021. The articles selected were classified considering the modalities and type of eHealth strategies.

Results

A total of 10 articles were included in this review. Two types of modalities were identified and classified: the intervention that used the web-based platform (WBP) was the most used in the studies (n = 7), followed by the interactive smartphone application (ISA) (n = 3) and mixed (WBP + ISA) (n = 1). As for the classification, mixed interventions were the most used (n = 4), followed by self-monitoring (n = 3), educational (n = 2), and behavioral counseling (n = 1). The clustering of articles generated three groups for the presentation of results and discussion, being eHealth interventions: integrated care, detection of symptoms, and quality of life in older patients with PC, psychological eHealth interventions in older adults with PC, and physical activity eHealth interventions in older adults with PC.

Conclusion

eHealth interventions for patients with PC are relatively new but promising in the support of current care options.

A scoping review examining the integration of exercise services in clinical oncology settings

Background

Addressing questions surrounding the feasibility of embedding exercise service units in clinical oncology settings is imperative for developing a sustainable exercise-oncology clinical pathway. We examined available literature and offered practical recommendations to support evidence-based practice, policymaking, and further investigations.

Methods

Four thousand eight hundred sixty-three unique records identified in Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and ProQuest (Health and Medicine) were screened for studies that recruited cancer patients, assessed the co-location of exercise service and cancer treatment units, and reported findings on service implementation. Evidence from six studies providing data from over 30 programs was integrated using narrative synthesis.

Results

Service implementation was relatively modest across the included studies. Exercise services were delivered by physiotherapists, exercise physiologists, and kinesiologists and funded mainly through grants and private donations, with staff salaries accruing as the major expense. Service penetration, adoption, and acceptability were generally low. However, studies recorded high clinician/patient satisfaction. Major barriers to service integration were limited funding, lack of detailed implementation plan, and low organizational buy-in. Common reasons for non-utilization, missed sessions, and dropouts were lack of interest, unwellness, hospital readmission, disease progression, and adverse skeletal events.

Conclusion

Implementing exercise services in clinical oncology settings seems an effective approach for increasing access to exercise-based rehabilitation for individuals on cancer treatment. While this model appears feasible for patients/clinicians, efforts are required to optimize service integration both in the short and long term. Key priorities include seeking [local] actions to address issues relating to funding and organizational buy-in. Important considerations may include developing an implementation plan to guide the implementation process, expanding the patient core management team to include staff from the exercise rehabilitation unit, and exploring the role of patient feedback in increasing clinician participation (e.g., treating oncologists and nurses) in the referral process. Future research should consider effective strategies to promote patients’ sense of self-efficacy and behavioral control and, further, the place of audit and feedback in improving exercise service delivery and overall service implementation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07598-y.

Acceptability and Preliminary Efficacy of a Web- and Telephone-Based Personalised Exercise Intervention for Individuals with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: The ExerciseGuide Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial

Simple Summary

Previous research supports the participation in supervised exercise among individuals with metastatic prostate cancer to help lessen the physical and psychological disease burden. However, many individuals experience considerable barriers to attending face-to-face exercise services. To overcome some of these limitations, digital interventions that can be delivered remotely have been proposed. Our pilot study investigated the acceptability, safety and preliminary efficacy of an 8-week computer-tailored web-based exercise intervention. We demonstrated that a web-based exercise program with telehealth support was acceptable and could be implemented safely. Participants in the intervention group increased their participation in moderate to vigorous physical activity compared to the control group. This study provides insight into the prospect of web-based exercise prescription for individuals with metastatic prostate cancer as an alternative for individuals who cannot access supervised exercise interventions.

Abstract

Preliminary research has shown the effectiveness of supervised exercise-based interventions in alleviating sequela resulting from metastatic prostate cancer. However, many individuals encounter barriers that limit the uptake of face-to-face exercise. Technology-enabled interventions offer a distance-based alternative. This pilot study aimed to explore the acceptability, safety and preliminary efficacy of a web-based exercise intervention (ExerciseGuide) in individuals with metastatic prostate cancer. Forty participants (70.2 ± 8.5 years) with metastatic prostate cancer were randomised into the 8-week intervention (N = 20) or a wait-list control (N = 20). The intervention arm had access to a computer-tailored website, personalised exercise prescription and remote supervision. ExerciseGuide was deemed acceptable with a score ≥20 on the client satisfaction questionnaire; however, the usability score was just below the pre-specified score of ≥68 on the software usability scale. There were no serious adverse events reported. Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity levels between baseline and follow-ups were significantly higher (10.0 min per day; 95% CI = (1.3–18.6); p = 0.01) in the intervention group compared to wait-list control. There were also greater improvements in step count (1332; 95% CI = (159–2505); p = 0.02) and identified motivation (0.4, 95% CI = (0.0, 0.7); p = 0.04). Our findings provide preliminary evidence that ExerciseGuide is acceptable, safe and efficacious among individuals with metastatic prostate cancer.

Usability, Acceptability, and Safety Analysis of a Computer-Tailored Web-Based Exercise Intervention (ExerciseGuide) for Individuals With Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Multi-Methods Laboratory-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Digital health interventions such as tailored websites are emerging as valuable tools to provide individualized exercise and behavioral change information for individuals diagnosed with cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to investigate and iteratively refine the acceptability and usability of a web-based exercise intervention (ExerciseGuide) for men with metastatic prostate cancer and determine how well individuals can replicate the video-based exercise prescription.

METHODS

A laboratory-based multi-methods design was used, incorporating questionnaires, think-aloud tests, interviews, and movement screening among 11 men aged 63 to 82 years with metastatic prostate cancer. Overall, 9 participants were undergoing androgen deprivation therapy, and 2 were completing chemotherapy. Data were collected in two waves, with changes made for quality improvement after participant 5.

RESULTS

The intervention's usability score was deemed moderate overall but improved after modifications (from 60, SD 2.9 to 69.6, SD 2.2 out of 100). Overall, the participants found the intervention acceptable, with scores improving from wave 1 (24.2, SD 1.1 out of 30) to wave 2 (26.3, SD 2.1 out of 30). The personalized multimodal exercise prescription and computer-tailored education were seen as valuable. After wave 1, website navigation videos were added, medical terminology was simplified, and a telehealth component was included after expert real-time telehealth support was requested. Wave 2 changes included the added variety for aerobic exercise modes, reduced computer-tailoring question loads, and improved consistency of style and grammar. Finally, the participants could replicate the resistance exercise videos to a satisfactory level as judged by the movement screen; however, additional technique cueing within the videos is recommended to address safety concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

The acceptability and usability of ExerciseGuide were deemed satisfactory. Various problems were identified and resolved. Notably, the participants requested the inclusion of personalized expert support through telehealth. The resistance training algorithms were shown to provide appropriate content safely, and the users could replicate the exercise technique unaided to a satisfactory level. This study has optimized the ExerciseGuide intervention for further investigation in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12618001978257; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12618001978257.