Search

Purpose: Exercise has been shown to improve the health and well-being of people who have survived cancer. Yet, less than 40% of cancer survivors in Australia meet the recommended 150 min of moderate-intensity physical activity per week. Our objective was to systematically review the literature regarding barriers, facilitators and preferences for exercise for survivors of cancer.Method: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Scopus were searched for qualitative and quantitative articles addressing barriers, facilitators and preferences for exercise in cancer survivors. Quality assessment was performed by two independent reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Thomas and Harden's method of thematic synthesis was used to amalgamate qualitative data while descriptive statistics were used to collate quantitative data.Results: Nineteen studies were included (9 qualitative and 10 quantitative). Persisting treatment-related side effects was the most commonly reported barrier to initiating or maintaining exercise, followed by lack of time and fatigue. The most common facilitators of exercise were gaining a feeling of control over their health as well as managing emotions and mental well-being, while the preferred method of exercise was walking. We also identified a lack of useful information provided to survivors regarding exercise.Conclusion: Treatment-related side effects, lack of time and fatigue were key barriers to exercise for survivors of varied cancer types. Insufficient patient education may contribute to the belief that exercise is not helpful when experiencing side effects of treatment, including fatigue. Identifying barriers and facilitators leads to improved support and education from health professionals which is required to provide safe and effective exercise recommendations for survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/purpose: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a prominent side effect of the treatment of cancer. Despite this frequent complication, there has been no comprehensive review and quality appraisal of CIPN assessments. The purpose of this study is to provide a definitive quality appraisal of CIPN assessment strategies for clinical use.Methods: Relevant studies were identified through database searches of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane. CIPN assessment strategies from included articles were extracted and initially rated by an oncologist and neurophysiologist according to criteria related to assessment depth, comprehensiveness, appropriateness, and reliability. The six highest scoring assessment strategies were the focus of a two-round Delphi survey of a working party of 32 physicians, nurses, and consumers to achieve consensus on the highest rated assessments for each criterion.Results: The database search yielded 117 distinct CIPN assessments that were extracted from 2373 articles. Three patient-reported outcome surveys and three clinician-based assessments were included in the Delphi survey. No consensus was generated regarding the best overall CIPN assessment, although good (≥70%) consensus was achieved regarding the best assessment within each criterion. The Participant Neurotoxicity Questionnaire (PNQ) was rated the highest overall and patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment, while the Total Neuropathy Score clinical version (TNSc) was the highest rated clinician-based assessment.Conclusions: A diverse range of CIPN assessments currently exists. While several assessments assess CIPN symptoms with adequate comprehensiveness, depth, language, and feasibility, the consensus 'gold standard' clinical assessment remains to be established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Immigrants from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds diagnosed with cancer face multiple challenges with health systems foreign to them. There is scarce understanding about their needs following cancer treatment in the survivorship phase. Unmet needs were examined in immigrant Chinese and Greek cancer survivors in order to assist development of relevant and useful information resources for these CALD groups.Methods: Qualitative descriptive design was used. Adult cancer survivors, whose native language was Mandarin, Cantonese or Greek, were recruited through ethnic cancer support groups and cancer specialists in two Australian cities. Six focus groups were conducted, two in each native language group. Recorded responses were transcribed, translated into English, and thematically analysed.Results: Thirty-nine CALD cancer survivors participated from Greek (11), Cantonese (14) and Mandarin (14) backgrounds. Thematic findings included as follows: ongoing cancer-related stressors, cancer misunderstandings, coping strategies, 'survivor' seldom reflects self-appraisal, and additional CALD survivorship information needed. Immigrant cancer survivors may prefer 'recovery' to 'survivorship' descriptors and need information similar to Caucasian cancer survivors alongside as follows: resources for navigating health care, financial and community entitlements; caregiver-directed information to enhance their support; explanations about differences in health care approaches between survivors' original and adopted countries; and acknowledgment of survivorship diversity within CALD groups.Conclusions: Immigrant cancer survivors' additional requirements to native survivors likely reflect challenges in dealing with foreign environments and varied levels of acculturation within group members. Identification of immigrant cancer survivorship issues may support development of targeted resources for promoting survivors' self-care and capacity for finding, choosing, and using existing support options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]