Implementing physical activity programs for patients with cancer in current practice: patients' experienced barriers and facilitators.

PURPOSE: The present study aimed to identify patients' experienced barriers and facilitators in implementing physical activity programs for patients with cancer. METHODS: We interviewed 34 patients in focus-group-interviews from three different hospital-types. We included patients with cancer who were either receiving curative treatment or had recently completed it. Barriers and facilitators were explored in six domains: (1) physical activity programs, (2) patients, (3) healthcare professionals (HCPs), (4) social setting, (5) organization, and (6) law and governance. RESULTS: We found 12 barriers and 1 facilitator that affect the implementation of physical activity programs. In the domain of physical activity programs, the barrier was physical activity programs not being tailored to the patient's needs. In the domain of patients, lacking responsibility for one's own health was a barrier. Knowledge and skills for physical activity programs and non-commitment of HCPs impeded implementation in the domain of HCPs. Barriers in the domain of organization included inconvenient place, time of day, and point in the health treatment schedule for offering the physical activity programs, inadequate capacity, inaccessibility of contact persons, lack of information about physical activity programs, non-involvement of the general practitioner in the cancer care process, and poor communication between secondary and primary HCPs. Insufficient insurance-coverage of physical activity programs was a barrier in the domain of law and governance. In the domain of physical activity programs, contact with peers facilitated implementation. We found no barriers or facilitators at the social setting. CONCLUSIONS: Factors affecting the implementation of physical activity programs occurred in various domains. Most of the barriers occurred in the domain of organization. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: An implementation strategy that deals with the barriers might improve the implementation of physical activity programs and quality of life of cancer survivors.

Value of Implementation of Strategies to Increase the Adherence of Health Professionals and Cancer Survivors to Guideline-Based Physical Exercise.

BACKGROUND: To increase the adherence of health professionals and cancer survivors to evidence-based physical exercise, effective implementation strategies (ISTs) are required. OBJECTIVES: To examine to what extent these ISTs provide value for money and which IST has the highest expected value. METHODS: The net benefit framework of health economic evaluations is used to conduct a value-of-implementation analysis of nine ISTs. Seven are directed to health professionals and two to cancer survivors. The analysis consists of four steps: 1) analyzing the expected value of perfect implementation (EVPIM); 2) assessing the estimated costs of the various ISTs; 3) comparing the ISTs' costs with the EVPIM; and 4) assessing the total net benefit (TNB) of the ISTs. These steps are followed to identify which strategy has the greatest value. RESULTS: The EVPIM for physical exercise in the Netherlands is €293 million. The total costs for the ISTs range from €34,000 for printed educational materials for professionals to €120 million for financial incentives for patients, and thus all are cost-effective. The TNB of the ISTs that are directed to professionals ranges from €5.7 million for printed educational materials to €30.9 million for reminder systems. Of the strategies that are directed to patients, only the motivational program had a positive net benefit of €100.4 million. CONCLUSIONS: All the ISTs for cancer survivors, except for financial incentives, had a positive TNB. The largest improvements in adherence were created by a motivational program for patients, followed by a reminder system for professionals.

Study protocol: an evaluation of the effectiveness, experiences and costs of a patient-directed strategy compared with a multi-faceted strategy to implement physical cancer rehabilitation programmes for cancer survivors in a European healthcare system; a controlled before and after study.

BACKGROUND: The need for physical cancer rehabilitation programmes (PCRPs), addressing adverse effects from cancer, is growing. Implementing these programmes into daily practice is still a challenge. Since barriers for successful implementation often arise at different levels in healthcare, multi-faceted strategies focusing on multiple levels are likely more effective than single-faceted strategies. Nevertheless, most studies implementing PCRPs used strategies directed at patients only. The aim of this study is to develop and identify the most effective strategy to implement PCRPs into daily care. We want to assess the added value of a multi-faceted strategy compared with a single-faceted patient-directed strategy. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a clustered controlled before and after study (CBA) in the Netherlands that compares two strategies to implement PCRPs. The patient-directed (PD) strategy (five hospitals) will focus on change at the patient level. The multi-faceted (MF) strategy (five hospitals) will focus on change at the patient, professional and organizational levels. Eligibility criteria are as follows: (A) patients: adults; preferably (history of) cancer in the gastro-intestinal, reproductive and/or urological system; successful primary treatment; and without recurrence/metastases. (B) Healthcare professionals: involved in cancer care. A stepwise approach will be followed: Step 1: Analysis of the current implementation of PCRPs and the examination of barriers and facilitators for implementation, via a qualitative study with patients (four focus groups n = 10-12) and their healthcare workers (four focus groups n = 10-12 and individual interviews n = 30-40) and collecting data on adherence to quality indicators (n = 500 patients, 50 per hospital). Step 2: Selection and development of interventions to create a PD and MF strategy during expert roundtable discussions, using the knowledge gained in step 1 and a literature search of the effect of strategies for implementing PCRPs. Step 3: Test and compare both strategies with a clustered CBA (effectiveness, process evaluation and costs), by data extraction from existing registration systems, questionnaires and interviews. For the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, n = 500 patients, 50 per hospital. For the process evaluation, n = 50 patients, 5 per hospital, and n = 40 healthcare professionals, 4 per hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: % screened patients, % referrals to PCRPs, incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). TRAIL REGISTRATION: NCT02205853 (ClinicalTrials.gov).