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.

Attention to principles of exercise training: an updated systematic review of randomized controlled trials in cancers other than breast and prostate.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this systematic review was to update our previous review on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise in cancers other than breast or prostate, evaluating: 1) the application of principles of exercise training within the exercise prescription; 2) reporting of the exercise prescription components (i.e., frequency, intensity, time, and type (FITT)); and 3) reporting of participant adherence to FITT. A secondary objective was to examine whether reporting of these interventions had improved over time. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus databases were searched from 2012 to 2020. Eligible studies were RCTs of at least 4 weeks of aerobic and/or resistance exercise that reported on physiological outcomes relating to exercise (e.g., aerobic capacity, muscular strength) in people with cancer other than breast or prostate. RESULTS: Eighty-six new studies were identified in the updated search, for a total of 107 studies included in this review. The principle of specificity was applied by 91%, progression by 32%, overload by 46%, initial values by 72%, reversibility by 7% and diminishing returns by 5%. A significant increase in the percentage of studies that appropriately reported initial values (46 to 80%, p < 0.001) and progression (15 to 37%, p = 0.039) was found for studies published after 2011 compared to older studies. All four FITT prescription components were fully reported in the methods in 58% of all studies, which was higher than the proportion that fully reported adherence to the FITT prescription components in the results (7% of studies). Reporting of the FITT exercise prescription components and FITT adherence did not improve in studies published after 2011 compared to older studies. CONCLUSION: Full reporting of exercise prescription and adherence still needs improvement within exercise oncology RCTs. Some aspects of exercise intervention reporting have improved since 2011, including the reporting of the principles of progression and initial values. Enhancing the reporting of exercise prescriptions, particularly FITT adherence, may provide better context for interpreting study results and improve research to practice translation.