Despite evidence supporting oncology rehabilitation, few programs exist in Australia, and those that do often follow a cardiac rehabilitation model but face significant implementation barriers.
Oncology rehabilitation programs remain scarce in Australia with funding and awareness barriers; leaves open implementation research to expand access.
AIM: Oncology rehabilitation improves outcomes for cancer survivors but little is known about program availability in Australia. The aims of this study were: to describe oncology rehabilitation programs in Australia: determine whether the exercise component of programs is consistent with guidelines: and to explore barriers and facilitators to program implementation. METHODS: A sequential, explanatory mixed-methods study was completed in two phases: (1) a survey of Australian oncology rehabilitation programs; and (2) purposively sampled follow-up semistructured interviews with senior clinicians working in oncology rehabilitation who were involved with exercise prescription. RESULTS: Hospitals and/or cancer centers from 42 public hospital health networks (representing 163 hospitals) and 39 private hospitals were contacted to identify 31 oncology rehabilitation programs. All 31 surveys were returned (100% response rate). Programs were typically multidisciplinary, ran twice weekly, provided education and exercise and included self-management strategies. Exercise prescription and progression was patient centered and included a combination of resistance and aerobic training supplemented by balance, pelvic floor, and core stability exercises. Challenges to implementation included a lack of awareness of programs in the community and organizational barriers such as funding. Strong links with oncologists facilitated program referrals. CONCLUSION: Despite evidence to support oncology rehabilitation, there are few programs in Australia and there are challenges that limit it becoming part of standard practice. Programs that exist are multidisciplinary with a focus on exercise with the majority of programs following a cardiac rehabilitation model of care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dennett et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: