Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose Access to nutrition and exercise services for people with cancer-related malnutrition varies across health services. This study co-produced a personalised self-guided evidence-based nutrition and exercise web program and evaluated feasibility and acceptability within clinical practice. Methods A co-production approach was utilised following the four phases of Design Thinking in Healthcare. Phase 1 gathered user needs through interviews with consumers and health professionals, which were analysed using thematic analysis. Solutions were generated in Phase 2 to inform content and development of the platform. Phase 3 involved user acceptance testing. Feasibility testing in a clinical setting was undertaken in Phase 4. Results Phase 1: interviews with 14 health professionals (100% female, mean age 59.5 [range 25–57] years) and five people with cancer (100% female, mean age 53.5 [range 57–62] years) generated three themes: (1) patient characteristics, (2) features and functions of the web platform and (3) optimising practice. Phase 2: an 8-week evidence-based self-guided nutrition and exercise program (eENHANCE) was developed based on the interview findings and refined in Phase 3 testing. Phase 4: 20 people with cancer participated in feasibility testing of eENHANCE at a tertiary cancer centre, with high (86%) acceptability of the intervention, compliance with study outcome assessment (67–100%), while 30–100% accessed prescribed modules. Conclusions eENHANCE is a unique self-guided personalised nutrition and exercise program for people at risk of cancer-related malnutrition and muscle loss. High acceptability and feasibility indicate there may be potential to expand access to self-guided programs for people recovering from cancer treatment; however, further work is required in people undergoing treatment and to identify the most appropriate target groups and the optimal strategies to reach them to improve intervention fidelity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kiss et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: