Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Emerging digital health approaches could play a role in better personalized palliative care. Aim: We conducted a feasibility study testing wearable sensor (WS)-triggered ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) and electronic patient-reported outcomes in community palliative care with patient–caregiver dyads. Design: All wore consumer-grade WS for five weeks. Sensor-detected "stress" (heart rate variability algorithm) that passed individualized thresholds triggered a short smartphone survey. Daily sleep surveys, weekly symptom surveys (Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale), and a poststudy experience survey were conducted. Setting/Participants: Fifteen dyads (n = 30) were recruited from an outpatient palliative care clinic for people with cancer. Results: Daytime sensor wear-time had 73% adherence. Participants perceived value in this support. Quantity and severity of "stress" events were higher in patients. Sleep disturbance was similar but for different reasons: patients (physical symptoms) and caregivers (worrying about the patient). Conclusions: EMAs are feasible and valued in community palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This study aimed to (1) explore the perceptions of people living with cancer about exercise in general and exercise as an adjunct form of cancer care, (2) explore their perceptions regarding exercise counselling needs and preferences, and (3) investigate how these perceptions of exercise as an adjunct form of cancer care shape survivors exercise levels postcancer diagnosis. Methods: A cross‐sectional design and online survey were used to recruit cancer survivors via cancer‐related networks throughout Australia. Two factor analyses were conducted to examine the structure and reduce the number of variables pertaining to exercise during and after the cancer treatment. Extracted components were used in one‐way analysis of variance to compare differences in physical activity levels postcancer diagnosis. Results: Participants (N = 288) had very positive perceptions of exercise, yet only 50% of participants would prefer to receive exercise counselling. Those who were more active postcancer diagnosis had higher exercise beliefs than those who were similarly active (p = 0.04, r = 0.27) and less active (p = 0.03, r = 0.24) postdiagnosis. Those who were less active also had lower exercise knowledge than those who were similarly active (p = 0.01, r = 0.31) and more active (p = 0.03, r = 0.26). Safety beliefs did not significantly differ between cancer survivors' activity levels (p = 0.16) Conclusion: This survey highlights the potential benefits of a concentrated effort in connecting survivors to relevant services and resources, and utilizing cancer clinicians to communicate with survivors about the role of exercise in cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]