Identification of core competencies for exercise oncology professionals: A Delphi study of United States and Australian participants.

INTRODUCTION: Integration of exercise into standard oncology care requires a highly skilled workforce of exercise professionals; however, competency requirements have not kept pace with advancements in the field. Therefore, the aim of this study was to obtain consensus on core competencies required for an exercise professional to be qualified to work with adults undergoing active cancer treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A three-round modified electronic Delphi process was used. In Round 1, an international group of 64 exercise oncology stakeholders (i.e., exercise oncology professionals (n = 29), clinical referrers (n = 21), and people with lived experience (n = 14)) responded to open-ended prompts eliciting perspectives regarding competencies needed for an exercise oncology professional to work with adults receiving active cancer treatment. Subsequently, only exercise oncology professionals participated, ranking the importance of competencies. In Round 2, professionals received summary feedback, ranked new competencies generated from open-ended responses, and reranked competencies not reaching consensus. In the final round, professionals finalized consensus ranking and rated frequency and mastery level for each. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 103 core competencies required for exercise professionals to be qualified to deliver care to adults undergoing active cancer treatment. The core competencies represent 10 content areas and reflect the needs of clinical referrers and people with lived experience of receiving cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The core competencies identified reflect significant advancements in the field of exercise oncology. Results will underpin the development of education, certification, and employment requirements for exercise oncology professionals, providing a critical step toward achieving routine integration of exercise into standard oncology care.

The influence of telehealth-based cancer rehabilitation interventions on disability: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To characterize delivery features and explore effectiveness of telehealth-based cancer rehabilitation interventions that address disability in adult cancer survivors. METHODS: A systematic review of electronic databases (CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library: Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, National Health Service's Health Technology Assessment, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) was conducted in December 2019 and updated in April 2021. RESULTS: Searches identified 3,499 unique studies. Sixty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. There were 81 unique interventions across included studies. Interventions were primarily delivered post-treatment and lasted an average of 16.5 weeks (SD = 13.1). They were most frequently delivered using telephone calls (59%), administered delivered by nursing professionals (35%), and delivered in a one-on-one format (88%). Risk of bias of included studies was primarily moderate to high. Included studies captured 55 measures of disability. Only 54% of reported outcomes had data that allowed calculation of effect sizes ranging -3.58 to 15.66. CONCLUSIONS: The analyses suggest small effects of telehealth-based cancer interventions on disability, though the heterogeneity seen in the measurement of disability makes it hard to draw firm conclusions. Further research using more diverse samples, common measures of disability, and pragmatic study designs is needed to advance telehealth in cancer rehabilitation. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Telehealth-based cancer rehabilitation interventions have the potential to increase access to care designed to reduce disability across the cancer care continuum.

Community-based outpatient rehabilitation for the treatment of breast cancer-related upper extremity disability: an evaluation of practice-based evidence.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact and acceptability of outpatient physical or occupational therapy (PT/OT) for breast cancer survivors (BCS) with varying levels of upper extremity disability (UED). METHODS: We retrospectively extracted patient and therapy characteristics, UED measured by quick-disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (QuickDASH, 0-100 pts.), and patient-rated acceptability (1-item, 0-10 pts) from rehabilitation charts of BCS who completed cancer-specialized PT/OT provided by a single national institution in 2019. We summarized characteristics and acceptability using descriptive statistics, then used established parameters to group BCS by baseline UED severity: high- (QuickDASH > 31.5), moderate- (QuickDASH = 18.5-31.5), or low-UED (QuickDASH = 13-18.5). To evaluate within-group pre-to-post QuickDASH change, we used paired samples t test (p < 0.01), then calculated the proportion who achieved the minimally clinical important difference (MCID, 15.9 points). To compare between-groups difference in QuickDASH improvement, we used Kruskal-Wallis test and Chi-squared test. RESULTS: Patients (N = 417) were 59.89 ± 12.06 years old, 99% female, and attended approximately 10 PT/OT sessions (IQR = 6.0-16.0). Most had high baseline UED (62%), followed by moderate (25%) or low UED (13%). For each severity group, mean pre-to-post change in QuickDASH was significant: high-UED (M∆ = 25.13 ± 20.33, d = 1.24, p < 0.01), moderate-UED (M∆ = 11.36 ± 11.9, d = 0.95, p < 0.01), and low-UED (M∆ = 4.84 ± 9.15, d = 0.53, p < 0.01). Most with high UED achieved the MCID (n = 176, 68.2%). In the moderate- and low-UED groups 44% (n = 46) and 4% (n = 2) achieved the MCID, respectively. Acceptability was high (n = 167, Median = 10). CONCLUSION: Outpatient cancer rehabilitation is associated with significant improvement in UED for BCS and was acceptable to patients regardless of UED severity at baseline.