Cross-sectional survey identifies increased oncology rehabilitation programs, suggesting changes in cancer care practices.
Introduction Few exercise‐based oncology rehabilitation programs were available across Australia in 2015. Clinical guidelines have since recommended that exercise be included in standard cancer care. This study aimed to (1) identify and describe exercise‐based oncology rehabilitation programs in Australia, (2) determine whether there have been changes in the number or content of programs since 2015, and (3) describe factors associated with program implementation. Methods A cross‐sectional survey collected data from program coordinators of Australian oncology rehabilitation programs. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and using independent t‐tests and chi‐squared tests. Qualitative data underwent content analysis. Results The number of oncology rehabilitation programs in Australia increased from 31 programs in 2015 to 76 programs in 2024, equating to an 88% increase from 8 to 15 programs per 100,000 cancer survivors. Sixty‐two completed surveys were returned (62/76, 82% response rate). Programs were typically for people with any cancer at any stage of treatment. The proportion of programs offering education decreased by 29% since 2015 [χ 2 (1) = 6.011, p = 0.014]. On average, programs ran three times per week (standard deviation [SD] 4) for 11 weeks (SD 10). There was increased use of exercise testing in 2024. Program implementation was supported by an increasing presentation of cancer survivors in general rehabilitation programs (30/62, 48%) and challenged by a lack of funding (27/62, 44%). Conclusion Oncology rehabilitation programs in Australia have more than doubled in the past decade, but availability remains poor. Programs were mainly exercise‐only, with an increased use of objective criteria for exercise dosage and progression.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lasscock et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: