Physical Activity and Cancer Care in the Atlantic Canadian Provinces: an Examination of Provider Beliefs, Practices, Resources, Barriers, and Enablers

Barriers to and facilitators of physical activity in adults living with and beyond cancer, with special emphasis on head and neck cancer: a systematic review of qualitative and mixed methods studies

PURPOSE

Physical activity can improve health outcomes for cancer patients; however, only 30% of patients are physically active. This review explored barriers to and facilitators of physical activity promotion and participation in patients living with and beyond cancer. Secondary aims were to (1) explore similarities and differences in barriers and facilitators experienced in head and neck cancer versus other cancers, and (2) identify how many studies considered the influence of socioeconomic characteristics on physical activity behaviour.

METHODS

CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Cochrane (CDSR) were searched for qualitative and mixed methods evidence. Quality assessment was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and a Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Tool. Thematic synthesis and frequency of reporting were conducted, and results were structured using the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour model and Theoretical Domains Framework.

RESULTS

Thirty qualitative and six mixed methods studies were included. Socioeconomic characteristics were not frequently assessed across the included studies. Barriers included side effects and comorbidities (physical capability; skills) and lack of knowledge (psychological capability; knowledge). Having a dry mouth or throat and choking concerns were reported in head and neck cancer, but not across other cancers. Facilitators included improving education (psychological capability; knowledge) on the benefits and safety of physical activity.

CONCLUSION

Educating patients and healthcare professionals on the benefits and safety of physical activity may facilitate promotion, uptakeand adherence. Head and neck cancer patients experienced barriers not cited across other cancers, and research exploring physical activity promotion in this patient group is required to improve physical activity engagement.

Feasibility and safety of physical exercise in men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy and radiotherapy: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy (RT) increase survival in selected patients with prostate cancer. Nevertheless, the side effects of these therapies are associated with an increased risk of accidental falls and fractures and a decreased quality of life. Preliminary evidence suggests that physical exercise can be a valid strategy to reduce the side effects of ADT and RT in men with prostate cancer. Despite this knowledge, most patients with prostate cancer are insufficiently active, and there is a lack of data on the safety and adherence to the recommended dose of physical exercise. This study protocol is designed to examine the feasibility and safety of a multicomponent experimental physical exercise intervention targeting psychophysical and cognitive functions and the quality of life in this population.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a pilot feasibility study. Twenty-five men currently treated with ADT and RT for prostate cancer will be invited to participate in a 20-week, multicomponent physical exercise intervention, including supervised and unsupervised exercise sessions and meeting the current recommendation for exercise in cancer. The primary outcomes are physical exercise feasibility (recruitment, adherence and drop-out rates) and safety (adverse events related and unrelated to the intervention). The secondary outcomes are muscle strength, balance, fatigue, symptoms of anxiety and depression, cognitive function, quality of life, and patient satisfaction. We will also record the number of accidental falls and fractures occurring during the intervention and at 1 year of follow-up.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has received ethics approval from The Area Vasta Nord Local Ethics Committee (Province of Reggio Emilia, 23 June 2020, Number 520/2020/SPER/IRCCSRE). Recruitment began in September 2020 and will be completed in September 2021. The results will be disseminated through scientific journals and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04500080.

Implementation barriers to integrating exercise as medicine in oncology: an ecological scoping review

Purpose

While calls have been made for exercise to become standard practice in oncology, barriers to implementation in real-world settings are not well described. This systematic scoping review aimed to comprehensively describe barriers impeding integration of exercise into routine oncology care within healthcare systems.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted across six electronic databases (since 2010) to identify barriers to implementing exercise into real-world settings. An ecological framework was used to classify barriers according to their respective level within the healthcare system.

Results

A total of 1,376 results were retrieved; 50 articles describing implementation barriers in real-world exercise oncology settings were reviewed. Two hundred and forty-three barriers were identified across all levels of the healthcare system. Nearly 40% of barriers existed at the organizational level (n = 93). Lack of structures to support exercise integration and absence of staff/resources to facilitate its delivery were the most common issues reported. Despite the frequency of barriers at the organizational level, organizational stakeholders were largely absent from the research.

Conclusions

Implementing exercise into routine cancer care is hindered by a web of interrelated barriers across all levels of the healthcare system. Organizational barriers are central to most issues. Future work should take an interdisciplinary approach to explore best practices for overcoming implementation barriers, with organizations as a central focus.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

This blueprint of implementation barriers highlights critical issues that need to be overcome to ensure people with cancer have access to the therapeutic benefits of exercise during treatment and beyond.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11764-021-01080-0.

Input from multiple stakeholder levels prioritizes targets for improving implementation of an exercise intervention for rural women cancer survivors

Background

Although evidence-based interventions for increasing exercise among cancer survivors (CSs) exist, little is known about factors (e.g., implementation facilitators) that increase effectiveness and reach of such interventions, especially in rural settings. Such factors can be used to design implementation strategies. Hence, our study purpose was to (1) obtain multilevel perspectives on improving participation in and implementation of a multicomponent exercise behavior change intervention for rural women CSs and (2) identify factors important for understanding the context using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) for comparison across three levels (CSs, potential interventionists, community/organizational stakeholders).

Methods

We conducted three nominal group technique meetings with rural women CSs, three with community/organizational stakeholders, and one with potential interventionists. During each meeting, participants were asked to respond silently to one question asking what would make a multicomponent exercise intervention doable from intervention participation (CSs) or implementation (potential interventionists, stakeholders) perspectives. Responses were shared, discussed to clarify meaning, and prioritized by group vote. Data was deductively coded using CFIR.

Results

Mean age of CSs (n = 19) was 61.8 ± 11.1 years, community stakeholders (n = 16) was 45.9 ± 8.1 years, and potential interventionists (n = 7) was 41.7 ± 15.2 years. There was considerable consensus among CSs, potential interventionists, and stakeholders in terms of CFIR domains and constructs, e.g., “Design quality and packaging” (Innovation Characteristics), “Patients needs and resources” (Outer Setting), “Available resources” (Inner Setting), and “Engaging” (Process). However, participant-specific CFIR domains and constructs were also observed, e.g., CSs endorsed “Knowledge and beliefs about the intervention,” “Individual stage of change,” and “Self-efficacy” (Characteristics of Individuals); potential interventionists valued “Tension for change” (Inner Setting) and “Innovation participants” and “Key stakeholder” (Process); stakeholders emphasized “Goals and feedback” and “Network and communication” (Inner Setting), and “Planning” (Process). How the three participant levels conceptualized the CFIR constructs demonstrated both similarities and differences.

Conclusions

Multilevel input yielded diversity in type, relative priority, and conceptualization of implementation facilitators suggesting foci for future implementation strategy development and testing. Findings also reinforced the importance of multilevel implementation strategies for increasing exercise in an underserved, at-risk population.

An integrated model of exercise support for people affected by cancer: consensus through scoping

INTRODUCTION

Exercise support for people with cancer is a national priority. The purpose of this study was to identify the success factors necessary to create a model of exercise support for people affected by cancer in a large city in the north of England.

METHOD

Two groups of participants were recruited; people affected by cancer (n = 26) and professional stakeholders (n = 14) contributing to either focus groups or semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using framework analysis.

RESULTS

Results from this study suggest that the promotion of exercise is not a priority in routine cancer care. Patients identified a lack of support and difficulty attaining information as a barrier to becoming active, emphasising a gulf between the patients' needs and the health professionals' priorities. People affected by cancer and professionals agreed that exercise was beneficial to cancer patients both during and after treatment. For an exercise pathway to be successful, key factors were identified including accessibility; tailored support; social interaction; affordability; competence of exercise delivery staff.

CONCLUSIONS

There was consensus on the importance of exercise and critical factors required to develop a sustainable, accessible and effective service. Evidence to inform the development of an exercise pathway for people affected by cancer is provided.Implications for rehabilitationExercise should be an included component of a cancer treatment plan, discussed and initiated from diagnosis.Health professionals have a responsibility to provide clear, consistent evidence-based advice on exercise.Exercise professionals must be appropriately trained in cancer rehabilitation according to National Institute for Health and care Excellence (2014).Individual assessments of exercise needs, preferences and cancer limitations will result in a bespoke plan of recommendations and support.The option of group activities has the advantage of increased social interaction, peer support and shared experiences.Available exercise/physical activity services should be accessible and affordable but may involve a modest contribution.

The challenge of timing: a qualitative study on clinician and patient perspectives about implementing exercise-based rehabilitation in an acute cancer treatment setting

OBJECTIVE

Assess the barriers and facilitators to implementing an exercise-based rehabilitation program in an acute setting for cancer survivors receiving treatment.

METHODS

A qualitative study using individual semi-structured interviews and focus groups was completed with 25 clinicians working in oncology and 9 patients receiving cancer treatment who were purposively sampled at a tertiary hospital. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim with coding completed independently by two reviewers and confirmed by a third reviewer, followed by thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The main theme was finding the 'right time' for rehabilitation. Exercise-based rehabilitation was seen as important to deliver in the acute cancer treatment setting but challenging due to patient factors such as feeling overwhelmed and health service constraints. Barriers and facilitators to acute exercise-based rehabilitation were raised under four sub-themes: attitudes, knowledge, convenience and resources. There was agreement among both patients and clinicians around the main themes.

CONCLUSION

Implementing exercise-based rehabilitation in the acute cancer treatment setting is viewed as necessary but challenging to implement. Positive attitudes towards exercise-based cancer rehabilitation services from staff and patients in this study are at odds with current levels of service delivery. This study provides evidence for why this might be the case, and can be used to inform the design of future models of rehabilitation in the acute treatment setting to meet the needs of this patient group.