Search

Background: Approximately 3 million people in the United Kingdom are currently living with or beyond cancer. People undergoing treatment for cancer are at risk of complications following treatment. Increasing evidence supports the role of rehabilitation (including prehabilitation) in enhancing psychological and physical well-being in patients with cancer and improving outcomes. Active Together is an evidence-based, multimodal rehabilitation service for patients with cancer, providing support to help patients prepare for and recover from treatment. This paper presents the evaluation protocol for the Active Together service, aiming to determine its impact on patient-reported outcomes and clinical endpoints, as well as understand processes and mechanisms that influence its delivery and outcomes. Methods: This evaluation comprises an outcome and process evaluation, with service implementation data integrated into the analysis of outcome measures. The outcome evaluation will assess changes in outcomes of patients that attend the service and compare health care resource use against historical data. The process evaluation will use performance indicators, semistructured interviews, and focus groups to explore mechanisms of action and contextual factors influencing delivery and outcomes. Integrating psychological change mechanisms with outcome data might help to clarify complex causal pathways within the service. Conclusions: Evidence to support the role of multimodal rehabilitation before, during, and after cancer treatment is increasing. The translation of that evidence into practice is less advanced. Findings from this evaluation will contribute to our understanding of the real-world impact of cancer rehabilitation and strengthen the case for widespread adoption of rehabilitation into routine care for people with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Workplace health screening rarely includes measures of cardiorespiratory fitness, despite it being a greater predictor of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality than other routinely measured risk factors. This study aimed to determine the comparative acceptability of using a novel seismocardiography device to measure cardiorespiratory fitness via VO2 max during a workplace health check. Methods: Participants were invited to participate in workplace health screening sessions where VO2 max was assessed by both seismocardiography at rest and sub-maximal exercise testing, in order for acceptability of both to be compared across multiple domains. Questionnaires and focus group guides for participants and practitioners were developed based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Data were analysed using t-tests and deductive thematic analysis. Results: There was a significant difference in the acceptability domain of 'affective attitude' between the novel SCG device (M = 9.06 ± 1.14) and the sub-maximal exercise testing (M = 7.94 ± 1.79); t = 3.296, p =.001, d = 0.50, and in the domain of 'burden' between the novel SCG device (M = 9.16, ± 0.55) and the sub-maximal exercise testing (M = 7.41 ± 1.45); t = 7.033, p = < 0.001, d = 1.45. Practitioners and employees highlighted the potential of seismocardiography to create a more inclusive and accessible workplace offer, allowing those with restricted mobility or those with differing physical or emotional needs to participate in wellness testing; yet there was a lack of understanding in both groups around intervention effectiveness and coherence. Conclusions: Seismocardiography may offer an acceptable route to cardiorespiratory fitness testing in the workplace, due to the low effort requirement and simplicity of administration. This study suggests that practitioners delivering such services have a critical role to play in acceptability of health interventions at work, as employees will be heavily influenced by practitioner beliefs around coherence and effectiveness. Comprehensive delivery training is important for the adoption of new health-related technologies such as seismocardiography into workplace health screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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 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. 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. Exercise 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Prehabilitation aims to improve physiological reserve and psychological resilience, enabling patients to better tolerate the physiological stress of major surgery, thereby reducing the risk of complications and improving surgical outcomes. In this review, we provide an update of the development of prehabilitation in patients having cancer surgery. Methods We searched databases of peer-reviewed research to identify appropriate papers. Keywords comprised 'prehabilitation', 'cancer surgery' and associated synonyms (prehab; pre-operative rehabilitation; cancer). The results were combined with articles identified by reviewing the references of key papers and the use of the grey literature to develop our discussion. Results We detail the different elements of prehabilitation (exercise, nutrition, psychological support) relevant to patients with cancer undergoing surgery, focusing on the recent evidence base and ongoing challenges. Within this, we consider the role of behaviour change in enabling patients to undertake prehabilitation interventions and reflect on the different models of prehabilitation that have been utilised. Facilitators and barriers to implementation of prehabilitation are explored. Key findings include positioning prehabilitation as an integral part of the oncological surgical pathway which includes, but is discrete from, medical optimisation. Discussion Prehabilitation has the potential to improve surgical outcomes for patients undergoing cancer surgery. Further evidence is needed to understand how and what we provide to patients as optimal exercise, nutrition and psychological interventions as part of their surgical care, and how we improve long-term lifestyle using behaviour change methodology. Digital technology offers the opportunity for scaling and greater personalisation of prehabilitation but needs to be deliberately fashioned to ensure equitable access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Improving cardiorespiratory fitness (CRFit) in cancer patients is crucial to increase survivorship, promote health, and improve quality of life. High‐intensity training (HIT) has the potential to increase CRFit, perhaps better than other exercise modalities, but the extant evidence has yet to be fully explored. This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of HIT on CRFit in cancer patients and survivors and to identify the optimal characteristics of the interventions (eg, cancer type, intervention timing, exercise modality, intervention's duration, and the number of minutes of high‐intensity exercise in each session). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. A total of 31 articles (2515 participants) were included in the systematic review and 25 in the meta‐analyses. CRFit significantly improved with HIT in comparison with a control group (P <.00001, SMD = 0.44 and a 95% confidence interval from 0.25 to 0.64). The results obtained in the sub‐analysis were statistically significant except the comparison with the active group CRFit (P =.13). The results showed that higher effects could be achieved in: patients starting to exercise before treatment, interventions longer than eight weeks, programs including exclusively cardiovascular training and with a high‐intensity part of session duration of at least 20 minutes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recruitment issues continue to impact a large number of trials. Sharing recruitment information is vital to supporting researchers to accurately predict recruitment and to manage the risk of poor recruitment during study design and implementation. The purpose of this article is to build on the knowledge available to researchers on recruiting to community-based trials.Methods: A critical commentary of the recruitment challenges encountered during the Booster Study, a randomised controlled trial in which researchers investigated the effectiveness of a motivational interviewing style intervention on the maintenance of physical activity. An overview of recruitment is provided, as well as strategies employed to recruit prospective participants and possible barriers to recruitment.Results: Two hundred eighty-two people, 47 % of the original target, were recruited through mail-outs, with secondary recruitment pathways yielding no additional participants. The research team encountered problems with recontacting interested participants and providing study materials in non-English languages. A lower response rate to the mail-out and a greater number of non-contactable participants in the full study than in the pilot study resulted in a smaller pool of eligible participants from the brief intervention eligible for recruitment into the randomised controlled trial.Conclusions: Despite using widely accepted recruitment strategies and incorporating new recruitment tactics in response to challenges, the Booster Study investigators failed to randomise a sufficient number of participants. Recruitment in trials of community-based behavioural interventions may have different challenges than trials based on clinical or primary care pathways. Specific challenges posed by the complexity of the study design and problems with staffing and resources were exacerbated by the need to revise upwards the number of mailed invitations as a result of the pilot study. Researchers should ensure study design facilitates recruitment and consider the implications of changing recruitment on the operational aspects of the trial. Where possible, the impact of new strategies should be measured, and recruitment successes and challenges should be shared with those planning similar studies. ISRCTN56495859 (registered on 12 February 2009); NCT00836459 (registered on 3 February 2009). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]