Investigating How Bowel Cancer Survivors Discuss Exercise and Physical Activity Within Web-Based Discussion Forums: Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Online cancer support group discussions enable patients to share their illness experience with others. The sharing of technical and emotional support information and the ability to ask for advice are some of the primary discussions shared online. People with bowel cancer can also use these forums to support each other by sharing information based on personal experiences. This type of support provides newly diagnosed patients with advice about several topics, including exercise from those who have been there. Information gathered from online discussion boards may complement the advice received by health professionals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the nature of information related to exercise and physical activity exchanged online for cancer survivors. METHODS: A public open access bowel cancer discussion board was searched for threads containing information related to physical activity or exercise. Keywords such as exercise, physical activity, moving, walking, lifting, weights training, and resistance were used to search for threads (online conversations) related to exercise or physical activity. Only threads initiated by bowel cancer patients or survivors were included. From more than 6000 posts, the inclusion criteria yielded 75 threads for analysis. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted across all included threads. RESULTS: Analysis yielded 3 main themes: level of exercise competence, beneficial dimensions of exercise, and faith in the knowledge. Level of exercise competence illustrated the varying definitions of exercise that members of the forum discussed in the forum. Beneficial dimensions of exercise revealed that forum members shared both the spiritual benefits associated with exercise as well as the physical benefits or goodness that they feel exercise or physical activity provides them. Faith in the knowledge of exercise demonstrated that forum members were aware of the general benefits of exercise but felt disappointed that it did not keep the cancer at bay. However, members also had faith that exercise would keep them healthy after diagnosis and treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis revealed that people with bowel cancer discuss exercise and physical activity online and that they view exercise as having a mostly positive influence on their cancer journey. However, personal definitions of exercise became a source of conflict within the group. People with bowel cancer seeking information about exercise may benefit from participating in online support groups as it appears that there are many similar others willing to share their personal experiences with exercise. In addition, health care professionals responsible for caring for people with bowel cancer may use these findings to discuss exercise with their patients while being mindful of how they may view exercise.

Benefits and Barriers of Cancer Practitioners Discussing Physical Activity with their Cancer Patients.

Our aim was to synthesise the existing empirical literature and theoretical perspectives on the physical activity (PA) promotion practices and determinants of cancer clinicians and health professionals. We conducted a narrative review of theory and evidence to develop practice recommendations for improving the promotion of PA to cancer patients. Surveyed health professionals were aware of many benefits of PA for their cancer patients, although only ~40 % promoted PA to selected cancer patients. Walking was the most commonly promoted form of PA, with this promoted to assist patients control their weight and cardiovascular health risk. Barriers to promotion of PA included lack of time and knowledge of PA and behaviour change skills. Health professionals appear interested in promoting PA to their cancer patients, yet encounter several barriers. Further research is warranted to assist health professionals improve their PA promotion. An adapted reflective-impulsive model of social behaviour shows promise for assisting health professionals overcome barriers and provides an evidence-based theoretical framework for improving communication with patients. Universities, hospitals and/or health-care accreditation organisations also have important roles to play in assisting health professionals improve their promotion of PA to patients.

Beliefs, barriers, and promotion practices of Indian nurses' regarding healthy eating for cancer survivors in a tertiary care hospital-A cross sectional survey.

Purpose: To describe the beliefs, barriers and promotion practices of Indian nurses' regarding healthy eating (HE) behaviours amongst cancer survivors, and to gain insights into whether their educational qualifications might affect the promotion of HE. Methods: Data was gathered using a validated questionnaire, 388 of the approached 400 nurses who worked at a tertiary care hospital in India gave informed consent to participate in the study. The Mann-Whitney U test and the Chi square analysis (for continuous and categorical variables respectively) were performed to carry out sub-group comparisons based on the qualification of the nurses i.e., Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSc) and General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM). Results: The nurses believed that dieticians/nutritionists were primarily responsible for educating the cancer survivors regarding HE. HE was promoted by nurses' relatively equally across multiple treatment stages ("during" treatment 24.4%, "post" treatment 23.1%; and "pre" treatment 22.3%). Nurses' believed HE practices had numerous benefits, with improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (75.7%), and mental health (73.9%) being the most frequent responses. The most frequently cited barriers by the nurses in promoting HE were lack of time (22.2%), and lack of adequate support structure (19.9%). Sub-group comparisons generally revealed no significant difference between the BSc and GNM nurses in their perceptions regarding HE promotion to cancer survivors. Exceptions were how the GNM group had significantly greater beliefs regarding whether HE can "reduce risk of cancer occurrence" (p = 0.004) and "whether or not I promote HE is entirely up to me" (p = 0.002). Conclusion: The nurses in India believe in the promotion of HE practices among cancer survivors across various stages of cancer treatments. However, they do face a range of barriers in their attempt to promote HE. Overcoming these barriers might facilitate effective promotion of HE among cancer survivors and help improve survivorship outcomes. Implications for cancer survivors: Indian nurses employed in the two tertiary care hospitals wish to promote HE among cancer survivors, but require further knowledge and support services for more effective promotion of HE.

Indian nurses' beliefs on physical activity promotion practices for cancer survivors in a tertiary care hospital-a cross-sectional survey.

Purpose: To describe the physical activity (PA) promotion practices, beliefs, and barriers of Indian nurses working with cancer survivors, and to gain preliminary insights into how their educational qualification might affect PA promotion practices. Methods: A validated questionnaire was used to obtain the data (N = 388). Sub-group comparisons were performed based on nursing qualification i.e., Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSc) and General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) using Mann-Whitney U test and chi square analysis for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Results: The nurses believed that oncologists (47%) followed by physiotherapists (28.9%) were primarily responsible for providing information regarding PA to cancer survivors. The most common period in which the nurses' promoted PA was post treatment (31.7%), although very few nurses (13.3%) promoted PA across more than one of the three treatment periods. Nurses felt that PA had many benefits for cancer survivors; improved mental health (87.7%) and HRQoL (81.1%). Lack of knowledge (42.2%) and lack of time (41.6%) were the most frequently cited barriers. The comparisons based on educational qualification did not typically reveal many significant differences. Conclusion: Indian nurses both BSc and GNM qualified, wish to promote PA to cancer survivors despite numerous barriers, across various stages of treatment and believe PA is beneficial to the survivors in the process of recovery. Overcoming these barriers might aid in better promotion of PA to cancer survivors. Implication for cancer survivors: Nurses working in a tertiary care hospital in India are willing to promote PA amongst cancer survivors but require more training and support in this area of practice.

Reliability and validity of clinically accessible smartphone applications to measure joint range of motion: A systematic review.

Measuring joint range of motion is an important skill for many allied health professionals. While the Universal Goniometer is the most commonly utilised clinical tool for measuring joint range of motion, the evolution of smartphone technology and applications (apps) provides the clinician with more measurement options. However, the reliability and validity of these smartphones and apps is still somewhat uncertain. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding the intra- and inter-rater reliability and validity of smartphones and apps to measure joint range of motion. Eligible studies were published in English peer-reviewed journals with full text available, involving the assessment of reliability and/or validity of a non-videographic smartphone app to measure joint range of motion in participants >18 years old. An electronic search using PubMed, Medline via Ovid, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SPORTSDiscus was performed. The risk of bias was assessed using a standardised appraisal tool. Twenty-three of the eligible 25 studies exceeded the minimum 60% score to be classified as a low risk of bias, although 3 of the 13 criteria were not achieved in >50% of the studies. Most of the studies demonstrated adequate intra-rater or inter-rater reliability and/or validity for >50% of the range of motion tests across all joints assessed. However, this level of evidence appeared weaker for absolute (e.g. mean difference ± limit of agreement, minimal detectable change) than relative (e.g. intraclass correlation, correlation) measures; and for spinal rotation than spinal extension, flexion and lateral flexion. Our results provide clinicians with sufficient evidence to support the use of smartphones and apps in place of goniometers to measure joint motion. Future research should address some methodological limitations of the literature, especially including the inclusion of absolute and not just relative reliability and validity statistics.

Physical Activity Promotion, Beliefs, and Barriers Among Australasian Oncology Nurses.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To describe the physical activity (PA) promotion practices, beliefs, and barriers of Australasian oncology nurses and gain preliminary insight into how PA promotion practices may be affected by the demographics of the nurses.
. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey.
. SETTING: Australia and New Zealand.
. SAMPLE: 119 registered oncology nurses.
. METHODS: Self-reported online survey completed once per participant.
. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Questions assessed the PA promotion beliefs (e.g., primary healthcare professionals responsible for PA promotion, treatment stage), PA benefits (e.g., primary benefits, evidence base), and PA promotion barriers of oncology nurses.
. FINDINGS: Oncology nurses believed they were the major providers of PA advice to their patients. They promoted PA prior to, during, and post-treatment. The three most commonly cited benefits of PA for their patients were improved quality of life, mental health, and activities of daily living. Lack of time, lack of adequate support structures, and risk to patient were the most common barriers to PA promotion. Relatively few significant differences in the oncology nurses' PA promotion practices, beliefs, and barriers were observed based on hospital location or years of experience.
. CONCLUSIONS: Despite numerous barriers, Australasian oncology nurses wish to promote PA to their patients with cancer across multiple treatment stages because they believe PA is beneficial for their patients.
. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Hospitals may need to better support oncology nurses in promoting PA to their patients and provide better referral pathways to exercise physiologists and physiotherapists.

Current nutrition promotion, beliefs and barriers among cancer nurses in Australia and New Zealand.

Rationale. Many cancer patients and survivors do not meet nutritional and physical activity guidelines, thus healthier eating and greater levels of physical activity could have considerable benefits for these individuals. While research has investigated cancer survivors' perspective on their challenges in meeting the nutrition and physical guidelines, little research has examined how health professionals may assist their patients meet these guidelines. Cancer nurses are ideally placed to promote healthy behaviours to their patients, especially if access to dieticians or dietary resources is limited. However, little is known about cancer nurses' healthy eating promotion practices to their patients. The primary aim of this study was to examine current healthy eating promotion practices, beliefs and barriers of cancer nurses in Australia and New Zealand. A secondary aim was to gain insight into whether these practices, beliefs and barriers were influenced by the nurses' hospital or years of work experience. Patients and Methods. An online questionnaire was used to obtain data. Sub-group cancer nurse comparisons were performed on hospital location (metropolitan vs regional and rural) and years of experience (<25 or ≥25 years) using ANOVA and chi square analysis for continuous and categorical data respectively. Results. A total of 123 Australasian cancer nurses responded to the survey. Cancer nurses believed they were often the major provider of nutritional advice to their cancer patients (32.5%), a value marginally less than dieticians (35.9%) but substantially higher than oncologists (3.3%). The majority promoted healthy eating prior (62.6%), during (74.8%) and post treatment (64.2%). Most cancer nurses felt that healthy eating had positive effects on the cancer patients' quality of life (85.4%), weight management (82.9%), mental health (80.5%), activities of daily living (79.7%) and risk of other chronic diseases (79.7%), although only 75.5% agreed or strongly agreed that this is due to a strong evidence base. Lack of time (25.8%), adequate support structures (17.3%) nutrition expertise (12.2%) were cited by the cancer nurses as the most common barriers to promoting healthy eating to their patients. Comparisons based on their hospital location and years of experience, revealed very few significant differences, indicating that cancer nurses' healthy eating promotion practices, beliefs and barriers were largely unaffected by hospital location or years of experience. Conclusion. Australasian cancer nurses have favourable attitudes towards promoting healthy eating to their cancer patients across multiple treatment stages and believe that healthy eating has many benefits for their patients. Unfortunately, several barriers to healthy eating promotion were reported. If these barriers can be overcome, nurses may be able to work more effectively with dieticians to improve the outcomes for cancer patients.