TY - JOUR
T1 - Bridging the gap
T2 - a pre-post feasibility study of embedding exercise therapy into a co-located cancer unit
AU - Dennett, Amy M.
AU - Zappa, Bernadette
AU - Wong, Rachel
AU - Ting, Stephen B.
AU - Williams, Kimberley
AU - Peiris, Casey L.
N1 - Funding Information:
Initial funding for the pilot was provided by an external service improvement grant. Philanthropic funds were sought to sustain the program beyond the pilot period to fund ongoing clinical staff salaries. There was no cost to patients to participate in the program. Participants were offered subsidised on-site parking through the day oncology unit but reported not using it due to limited availability.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/11
Y1 - 2021/11
N2 - Purpose: To establish the feasibility of embedding a flexible, exercise-based rehabilitation program into a cancer treatment unit to allow cancer survivors early exercise support. Method: A pre-post study was conducted using Bowen’s Framework to describe key domains of feasibility: demand (referrals), acceptability (uptake, attendance, satisfaction), implementation (resources), practicality (adverse events, costs) and limited-efficacy (function, quality of life, self-efficacy). Participants were medically stable, adult cancer survivors receiving curative or palliative treatment for cancer at the health service. Participants completed an 8-week home or hospital-based exercise program. Data were analysed descriptively. Standardised mean differences (Hedge’s g) and mean differences were calculated to determine effect size and clinical significance. Results: The exercise-based rehabilitation service received 155 referrals over 6 months. Of those eligible, 73/119 (61%) commenced. Participants opting for twice-weekly, hospital-based exercise attended 9/16 (56%) sessions. Participants reported high satisfaction and there were no major adverse events. The program utilised existing resources, with the predominant cost being staff. The average health service cost per participant was AUD $1,104. Participants made clinically significant gains in function (6-min walk distance; + 73 m, 95% confidence interval 49 to 96) and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 Global quality of life; + 8 units, 95% confidence interval 3 to 13). Conclusion: Implementation of exercise-based rehabilitation in a co-located cancer unit was safe and feasible. Access, patient and staff education and establishing funding streams are important implementation considerations. Implications for cancer survivors Access to exercise in a cancer unit provides opportunity for early intervention to optimise function during treatment.
AB - Purpose: To establish the feasibility of embedding a flexible, exercise-based rehabilitation program into a cancer treatment unit to allow cancer survivors early exercise support. Method: A pre-post study was conducted using Bowen’s Framework to describe key domains of feasibility: demand (referrals), acceptability (uptake, attendance, satisfaction), implementation (resources), practicality (adverse events, costs) and limited-efficacy (function, quality of life, self-efficacy). Participants were medically stable, adult cancer survivors receiving curative or palliative treatment for cancer at the health service. Participants completed an 8-week home or hospital-based exercise program. Data were analysed descriptively. Standardised mean differences (Hedge’s g) and mean differences were calculated to determine effect size and clinical significance. Results: The exercise-based rehabilitation service received 155 referrals over 6 months. Of those eligible, 73/119 (61%) commenced. Participants opting for twice-weekly, hospital-based exercise attended 9/16 (56%) sessions. Participants reported high satisfaction and there were no major adverse events. The program utilised existing resources, with the predominant cost being staff. The average health service cost per participant was AUD $1,104. Participants made clinically significant gains in function (6-min walk distance; + 73 m, 95% confidence interval 49 to 96) and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 Global quality of life; + 8 units, 95% confidence interval 3 to 13). Conclusion: Implementation of exercise-based rehabilitation in a co-located cancer unit was safe and feasible. Access, patient and staff education and establishing funding streams are important implementation considerations. Implications for cancer survivors Access to exercise in a cancer unit provides opportunity for early intervention to optimise function during treatment.
KW - Exercise
KW - Referrals
KW - Rehabilitation
KW - Survivorship
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85105514638&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00520-021-06261-2
DO - 10.1007/s00520-021-06261-2
M3 - Article
C2 - 33963458
AN - SCOPUS:85105514638
SN - 0941-4355
VL - 29
SP - 6701
EP - 6711
JO - Supportive Care in Cancer
JF - Supportive Care in Cancer
IS - 11
ER -