Safety, Effectiveness, and Uptake of Exercise Medicine Integrated Within a Cancer Care Center

Exploring the practicality and acceptability a brief exercise communication and clinician referral pathway in cancer care: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

The majority of cancer patients and cancer care clinicians-CCCs (e.g., oncologists) believe that exercise is an important adjunct therapy that should be embedded in standard practice. Yet, CCCs do not routinely discuss exercise with their patients, nor do they regularly refer them to exercise professionals (e.g., exercise physiologists-EPs). This study evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of an evidence-based approach to improving exercise communication between CCCs and their patients, including an exercise referral pathway.

METHODS

Implementation and testing of the Exercise Communication and Referral Pathway (ECRP) occurred in Sydney, Australia. The ECRP included a brief oncology-initiated communication exchange with patients, CCC exercise referral to an EP, followed by EP-initiated telephone consultation with patients concerning tailored exercise advice. Participant perceptions concerning the feasibility and applicability of the ECPR were evaluated. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with CCCs (n = 3), cancer patients (n = 21), and an EP (n = 1). Inductive thematic analysis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Analysis generated three themes: (1) Navigating the role of CCCs in the ECRP, suggesting that oncology-initiated communication is a cue to action, however there was a lack of role clarity regarding exercise referral; (2) Implementing Patient-Orientated Care within a Standardised Pathway, highlighting the need for tailored information and advice for patients that reflects individual disease, socio-cultural, and environmental factors, and; (3) Taking Steps Towards Action, revealing the need for structural (e.g., EP initiated contact with patients) and policy changes (i.e., changes to Medicare, direct oncologist referral) to engage patients and better integrate exercise as part of standard care.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings provide important insights into improving oncology-patient exercise communication and developing an exercise referral pathway to increase engagement and patient reach. However, individual (e.g., experience, knowledge) and contextual factors (e.g., time, resources) need consideration when implementing an ECRP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical (#ACTRN12620000358943) on March 13, 2020.

Nurse-Supervised Exercise for People with Stage IV Cancer: The EFICANCER Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of the EFICANCER individualized and supervised exercise program for people with gastrointestinal, breast, or non-small cell lung stage IV cancer, in terms of quality of life and functional capacity.

DATA SOURCES

Randomized controlled clinical trial with two parallel groups: EFICANCER (n = 47) and control (n = 43). Both groups received standard oncological care. In addition, the EFICANCER group participated in a nurse-supervised exercise program. Primary outcome was cancer-specific (EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire) and general quality of life (SF-36) at baseline and after 2, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes were functional capacity (6-minute walking test), strength, and fatigue. The evolution in both groups was compared over 12 months using mixed-effect longitudinal models; 74.47% of patients completed at least one session of the program. At 12 months, EFICANCER group had better scores in cancer-related quality of life, with a difference between groups of 15.7 points (95% confidence interval 4.4 to 25.9) and in functional capacity, with a difference of 4.5 points (95% confidence interval -0.5 to 9.5). No significant differences in any other secondary variables were observed.

CONCLUSION

The EFICANCER primary care nurse supervised exercise program is safe and feasible and improves cancer patient's outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Providing the best care and trying to improve the quality of life of cancer patients are essential parts of nursing practice. Eficancer adds a new dimension to nursing practice by providing greater attention and care to patients during treatment through the supervision of physical exercise, thereby contributing to improve the quality of life of this population.

Building the plane while it's flying: implementation lessons from integrating a co-located exercise clinic into oncology care

Background

Despite its therapeutic role during cancer treatment, exercise is not routinely integrated into care and implementation efforts are largely absent from the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate a strategy to integrate the workflow of a co-located exercise clinic into routine care within a private oncology setting in two clinics in the metropolitan region of Western Australia.

Methods

This prospective evaluation utilised a mixed methods approach to summarise lessons learned during the implementation of an integrated exercise workflow and supporting implementation plan. Data collection was informed by the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework. Reports detailing utilisation of the exercise service and its referral pathways, as well as patient surveys and meeting minutes documenting the implementation process informed the evaluation.

Results

The co-located exercise service achieved integration into routine care within the clinical oncology setting. Patient utilisation was near capacity (reach) and 100% of clinicians referred to the service during the 13-month evaluation period (adoption). Moreover, ongoing adaptations were made to improve the program (implementation) and workflows were integrated into standard operating practices at the clinic (maintenance). The workflow performed as intended for ~70% of exercise participants (effectiveness); however, gaps were identified in utilisation of the workflow by both patients and clinicians.

Conclusion

Integration of exercise into standard oncology care is possible, but it requires the ongoing commitment of multiple stakeholders across an organisation. The integrated workflow and supporting implementation plan greatly improved utilisation of the co-located exercise service, demonstrating the importance of targeted implementation planning. However, challenges regarding workflow fidelity within and across sites limited its success highlighting the complexities inherent in integrating exercise into clinical oncology care in a real-world setting.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08607-w.

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.

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.

Effects of Exercise During Radiation Therapy on Physical Function and Treatment-Related Side Effects in Men With Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Radiation therapy is a commonly used treatment for prostate cancer; however, the side effects may negatively affect quality of life and cause patients to be less physically active. Although exercise has been shown to mitigate radiation therapy-related fatigue in men with prostate cancer during radiation therapy, other adverse effects of treatment such as physical deconditioning, urinary symptoms, or sexual dysfunction have not been systematically reviewed in this patient population. Thus, the purpose of this review was to investigate the effect of exercise on physical function and treatment-related side effects in men with prostate cancer undergoing radiation therapy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases in December 2020. Included studies were randomized controlled trials examining the effects of aerobic and/or resistance exercise interventions on measures of physical function and treatment-related side effects in prostate cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy. Meta-analysis was performed on outcomes that were reported in 2 or more studies.

RESULTS

Seven publications from 6 randomized controlled trials involving 391 prostate cancer patients were included. Patients had stage I to IV cancer with a Gleason score of ≤6 to 10. Exercise resulted in consistent significant benefits for physical function in terms of cardiovascular fitness (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-1.36; P < .01) and muscle function (SMD, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.53-2.07; P < .01). Furthermore, there was a significant positive effect of exercise on urinary toxicity (SMD, -0.71; 95% CI, -1.25 to -0.18; P < .01), but not on intestinal (P = .21) or hormonal toxicity (P = .41), depression (P = .45), or sleep symptoms (P = .88).

CONCLUSION

Based on the current evidence, exercise in men with prostate cancer undergoing radiation therapy improves physical function and mitigates urinary toxicity. The effect of exercise on other treatment-related side effects are less clear and require further investigation.