Multiple organizations around the world have issued evidence-based exercise guidance for patients with cancer and cancer survivors. Recently, the American College of Sports Medicine has updated its exercise guidance for cancer prevention as well as for the prevention and treatment of a variety of cancer health-related outcomes (eg, fatigue, anxiety, depression, function, and quality of life). Despite these guidelines, the majority of people living with and beyond cancer are not regularly physically active. Among the reasons for this is a lack of clarity on the part of those who work in oncology clinical settings of their role in assessing, advising, and referring patients to exercise. The authors propose using the American College of Sports Medicine's Exercise Is Medicine initiative to address this practice gap. The simple proposal is for clinicians to assess, advise, and refer patients to either home-based or community-based exercise or for further evaluation and intervention in outpatient rehabilitation. To do this will require care coordination with appropriate professionals as well as change in the behaviors of clinicians, patients, and those who deliver the rehabilitation and exercise programming. Behavior change is one of many challenges to enacting the proposed practice changes. Other implementation challenges include capacity for triage and referral, the need for a program registry, costs and compensation, and workforce development. In conclusion, there is a call to action for key stakeholders to create the infrastructure and cultural adaptations needed so that all people living with and beyond cancer can be as active as is possible for them.
BackgroundSurvivors of critical illness experience long-term functional challenges, which are complex, heterogeneous, and multifactorial in nature. Although the importance of rehabilitation interventions after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge is universally recognized, evidence on feasibility and effectiveness of home-based rehabilitation programs is scarce and ambiguous. This study investigates the feasibility of an interdisciplinary rehabilitation program designed for patients with Post-Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS) who are discharged home.MethodsA mixed method, non-randomized, prospective pilot feasibility study was performed with a 6-month follow-up, comparing the intervention (REACH) with usual care. REACH was provided by trained professionals and included a patient-centered, interdisciplinary approach starting directly after hospital discharge. Primary outcomes were patient safety, satisfaction, adherence, referral need and health care usage. Secondary outcomes, measured at 3 timepoints, were functional exercise capacity, self-perceived health status, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), return to work and psychotrauma. Risk of undernutrition was assessed at baseline.Results43 patients with a median mechanical ventilation duration of 8 (IQR:10) days, were included in the study and 79.1% completed 6-month follow-up. 19 patients received the intervention, 23 received usual care. Groups were similar for gender distribution and ICU length of stay. No adverse events occurred. REACH participants showed higher satisfaction with treatment and reported more allied health professional visits, while the usual care group reported more visits to medical specialists. Qualitative analysis identified positive experiences among REACH-professionals related to providing state-of-the-art interventions and sharing knowledge and expertise within an interprofessional network. Similar recovery was seen between groups on all secondary outcomes, but neither group reached reference values for HRQoL at 6 months. Larger return to work rates were seen in the REACH group. Prevalence of undernutrition at hospital discharge was high in both groups (> 80%), warranting the need for careful tuning of physical therapy and nutritional interventions.ConclusionsThis study shows that providing early, home-based rehabilitation interventions for patients with PICS-related symptoms is feasible and perceived positively by patients and professionals. When provided in an interdisciplinary collaborative network state of the art, person-centered interventions can be tailored to individual needs potentially increasing patient satisfaction, adherence, and efficacy.Registered in the Dutch Trial register: NL7792: https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7792, registered 7-06-2019.
MULTIFILE
PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of a tailored, goal-directed, and exercise-based physical therapy program for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC).METHODS: This was an observational, uncontrolled feasibility study. The physical therapy intervention was highly tailored to the individual patient's goals, abilities, and preferences and could include functional, strength, aerobic, and relaxation exercises. Feasibility outcomes were participation rate (expected: 25%), safety, and adherence (percentage of attended sessions relative to scheduled sessions). Additional outcomes were goal attainment, self-reported physical functioning, fatigue, health-related quality of life, and patient and physical therapist satisfaction with the program.RESULTS: Fifty-five patients (estimated participation rate: 34%) were enrolled. Three patients did not start the intervention due to early disease progression. An additional 22 patients discontinued the program prematurely, mainly due to disease progression. Median intervention adherence was 90% and no major intervention-related adverse events occurred. A goal attainment score was available for 42 patients (of whom 29 had completed the program and 13 had prematurely dropped out). Twenty-two (52%) of these patients achieved their main goal fully or largely and an additional 15 patients (36%) partially. Eighty-five percent would "definitely recommend" the program to other patients with MBC. We observed a modest improvement in patient satisfaction with physical activities (Cohen's dz 0.33).CONCLUSION: The tailored intervention program was feasible in terms of uptake, safety, and outcomes and was highly valued by patients and physical therapists. However, disease progression interfered with the program, leading to substantial dropout.TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR register: NTR6475.
