CaRE@ELLICSR: Effects of a clinically integrated, group-based, multidimensional cancer rehabilitation program.

BACKGROUND: Although oncology clinical practice guidelines recognize the need and benefits of exercise, the implementation of these services into cancer care delivery remains limited. We developed and evaluated the impact of a clinically integrated 8-week exercise and education program (CaRE@ELLICSR). METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods, prospective cohort study to examine the effects of the program. Each week, participants attended a 1-h exercise class, followed by a 1.5-h education session. Questionnaires, 6-min walk tests (6MWT), and grip strength were completed at baseline (T0), 8 weeks (T1), and 20 weeks (T2). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sub-sample of participants about their experience with the program. RESULTS: Between September 2017 and February 2020, 277 patients enrolled in the program and 210 consented to participate in the research study. The mean age of participants was 55 years. Participants were mostly female (78%), white/Caucasian (55%) and half had breast cancer (50%). Participants experienced statistical and clinically meaninful improvements from T0 to T1 in disability, 6MWT, grip strength, physical activity, and several cancer-related symptoms. These outcomes were maintained 3 months after program completion (T2). Qualitative interviews supported these findings and three themes emerged from the interviews: (1) empowerment and control, (2) supervision and internal program support, and (3) external program support. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the impact of overcoming common organizational barriers to deliver exercise and rehabilitation as part of routine care. CaRE@ELLICSR demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported and functional outcomes and was considered beneficial and important by participants for their recovery and wellbeing.

A pre-implementation examination of barriers and facilitators of an electronic prospective surveillance model for cancer rehabilitation: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: An electronic Prospective Surveillance Model (ePSM) uses patient-reported outcomes to monitor symptoms along the cancer pathway for timely identification and treatment. Randomized controlled trials show that ePSMs can effectively manage treatment-related adverse effects. However, an understanding of optimal approaches for implementing these systems into routine cancer care is limited. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators prior to the implementation of an ePSM to inform the selection of implementation strategies. METHODS: A qualitative study using virtual focus groups and individual interviews was conducted with cancer survivors, oncology healthcare providers, and clinic leadership across four cancer centres in Canada. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided the interviews and analysis of barriers and facilitators based on five domains (intervention characteristics, individual characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, and process). RESULTS: We conducted 13 focus groups and nine individual interviews with 13 patient participants and 56 clinic staff. Of the 39 CFIR constructs, 18 were identified as relevant determinants to the implementation. The adaptability, relative advantage, and complexity of an ePSM emerged as key intervention-level factors that could influence implementation. Knowledge of the system was important at the individual level. Within the inner setting, major determinants were the potential fit of an ePSM with clinical workflows (compatibility) and the resources that could be dedicated to the implementation effort (readiness for implementation). In the outer setting, meeting the needs of patients and the availability of rehabilitation supports were key determinants. Engaging various stakeholders was critical at the process level. CONCLUSIONS: Improving the implementation of ePSMs in routine cancer care has the potential to facilitate early identification and management of treatment-related adverse effects, thereby improving quality of life. This study provides insight into important factors that may influence the implementation of an ePSM, which can be used to select appropriate implementation strategies to address these factors.

Implementation of electronic prospective surveillance models in cancer care: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Electronic prospective surveillance models (ePSMs) for cancer rehabilitation include routine monitoring of the development of treatment toxicities and impairments via electronic patient-reported outcomes. Implementing ePSMs to address the knowledge-to-practice gap between the high incidence of impairments and low uptake of rehabilitation services is a top priority in cancer care. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to understand the state of the evidence concerning the implementation of ePSMs in oncology. Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to February 2021. All articles were screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. Data regarding the implementation strategies, outcomes, and determinants were extracted. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy and the implementation outcomes taxonomy guided the synthesis of the implementation strategies and outcomes, respectively. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided the synthesis of determinants based on five domains (intervention characteristics, individual characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, and process). RESULTS: Of the 5122 records identified, 46 interventions met inclusion criteria. The common implementation strategies employed were "conduct educational meetings," "distribute educational materials," "change record systems," and "intervene with patients to enhance uptake and adherence." Feasibility and acceptability were the prominent outcomes used to assess implementation. The complexity, relative advantage, design quality, and packaging were major implementation determinants at the intervention level. Knowledge was key at the individual level. At the inner setting level, major determinants were the implementation climate and readiness for implementation. At the outer setting level, meeting the needs of patients was the primary determinant. Engaging various stakeholders was key at the process level. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a comprehensive summary of what is known concerning the implementation of ePSMs. The results can inform future implementation and evaluation of ePSMs, including planning for key determinants, selecting implementation strategies, and considering outcomes alongside local contextual factors to guide the implementation process.

Delivering Virtual Cancer Rehabilitation Programming During the First 90 Days of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multimethod Study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the adaptations made to implement virtual cancer rehabilitation at the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, as well as understand the experiences of patients and providers adapting to virtual care. DESIGN: Multimethod study. SETTING: Cancer center. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1968 virtual patient visits were completed during the study period. Adult survivors of cancer (n=12) and oncology health care providers (n=12) participated in semi-structured interviews. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Framework-driven categorization of program modifications, qualitative interviews with patients and providers, and a comparison of process outcomes with the previous 90 days of in-person care via referrals, completed visits and attendance, method of delivery, weekly capacities, and wait times. RESULTS: The majority of program visits could be adapted to virtual delivery, with format, setting, and content modifications. Virtual care demonstrated an increase or maintenance in the number of completed visits by appointment type compared with in-person care, with attendance ranging from 80%-93%. For most appointment types, capacities increased, whereas wait times decreased slightly. Overall, 168 patients (11% of all assessments and follow-ups) assessed virtually were identified by providers as requiring an in-person appointment because of reassessment of musculoskeletal and/or neurologic impairment (n=109, 65%) and lymphedema (n=59, 35%). The interviews (n=24) revealed that virtual care was an acceptable alternative in some circumstances, with the ability to (1) increase access to care; (2) provide a sense of reassurance during a time of isolation; and (3) provide confidence in learning skills to self-manage impairments. CONCLUSIONS: Many appointments can be successfully adapted to virtual formats to deliver cancer rehabilitation programming. Based on our findings, we provide practical recommendations that can be implemented by providers and programs to facilitate the adoption and delivery of virtual care.

"This is my home-based exercise": exploring environmental influences on home-based exercise participation in oncology.

PURPOSE: Home-based exercise interventions offer many health benefits; however, the environments that constitute home-based exercise are not well-understood. The purpose of this study was to explore what constitutes the "home" for cancer survivors engaging in home-based exercise and identify factors of the environment that may impact exercise participation. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative exploratory study of cancer survivors receiving a home-based exercise prescription to manage their cancer-related impairments. Semi-structured interviews included photo elicitation to actively involve participants in the interview process and provide opportunities to visually "observe" environments utilized for home-based exercise. RESULTS: Sixteen participants were interviewed (n = 11 women, median age = 53.5, range = 26-74 years) and three themes emerged: (1) reasons for participating in a home-based exercise program; (2) physical environmental influences and preferences; and (3) social environmental influences and preferences. The ability to self-manage exercise and accommodate competing demands, having access to exercise facilities, feeling comfortable exercising without qualified supervision, and a desire for autonomy were reasons home-based exercise programs were preferred. Participants reported that the physical environment influenced their experience with home-based exercise and sub-themes related to a dynamic environment, indoor and outdoor characteristics, and aesthetics were identified. The social environment, with sub-themes associated with the presence of people, social climate, exercise modeling, connection, and exercise support, also related to exercise behavior. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight the influence of the physical and social environment on exercise prescription engagement. They further indicate the need for exercise professionals to consider the environment for exercise when delivering home-based exercise interventions.

CaRE @ Home: Pilot Study of an Online Multidimensional Cancer Rehabilitation and Exercise Program for Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Although facility-based cancer rehabilitation and exercise programs exist, patients are often unable to attend due to distance, cost, and other competing obligations. There is a need for scalable remote interventions that can reach and serve a larger population. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods pilot study to assess the feasibility, acceptability and impact of CaRE@Home: an 8-week online multidimensional cancer rehabilitation and exercise program. Feasibility and acceptability data were captured by attendance and adherence metrics and through qualitative interviews. Preliminary estimates of the effects of CaRE@Home on patient-reported and physically measured outcomes were calculated. RESULTS: A total of n = 35 participated in the study. Recruitment (64%), retention (83%), and adherence (80%) rates, along with qualitative findings, support the feasibility of the CaRE@Home intervention. Acceptability was also high, and participants provided useful feedback for program improvements. Disability (WHODAS 2.0) scores significantly decreased from baseline (T1) to immediately post-intervention (T2) and three months post-intervention (T3) (p = 0.03 and p = 0.008). Physical activity (GSLTPAQ) levels significantly increased for both Total LSI (p = 0.007 and p = 0.0002) and moderate to strenuous LSI (p = 0.003 and p = 0.002) from baseline to T2 and T3. Work productivity (iPCQ) increased from T1 to T3 (p = 0.026). There was a significant increase in six minute walk distance from baseline to T2 and T3 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.010) and in grip strength from baseline to T2 and T3 (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that the CaRE@Home program is a feasible and acceptable cancer rehabilitation program that may help cancer survivors regain functional ability and decrease disability. In order to confirm these findings, a controlled trial is required.