JMIR Preprints #33130: Telerehabilitation was safe, feasible and increased exercise uptake in cancer survivors: A process evaluation

Current Preprint Settings

(as selected by the authors)

1. When the manuscript is submitted, allow peer review from:

(a) Anybody (open community peer review)
(b) Editor-selected reviewers (closed peer review)

2. When the manuscript is submitted, display the preprint PDF to:

(a) Anybody, anytime
(b) Logged-in users only
(c) Anybody, anytime (title and abstract only)
(d) No one

3. When the manuscript is accepted, display the accepted manuscript PDF to:

(a) Anybody, anytime
(b) Logged-in users only
(c) Anybody, anytime (title and abstract only)
(d) No one

Telerehabilitation was safe, feasible and increased exercise uptake in cancer survivors: A process evaluation

Amy Dennett;
Katherine E Harding;
Jacoba Reimert;
Rebecca Morris;
Phillip Parente;
Nicholas F Taylor

ABSTRACT

Background:

Access to exercise for cancer survivors is poor despite global recognition about its benefits. Telerehabilitation may overcome barriers to exercise for cancer survivors but is not routinely offered.

Objective:

Following rapid implementation of an exercise-based telerehabilitation program in response to COVID-19, a process evaluation was conducted to understand the impact on patients, staff and the health service in the aim of informing future program development.

Methods:

A mixed methods evaluation of a telerehabilitation program for cancer survivors admitted between March and December 2020. Interviews were conducted with program participants and staff involved in implementation. Routinely collected hospital data (referral, admissions, costs, adverse events, physical activity and quality of life) were also assessed. Patients received an 8-week telerehabilitation intervention including one-on-one health coaching via telehealth, online group exercise and education, information portal and home exercise prescription. Quantitative data were reported descriptively, and qualitative interview data coded and mapped to the Proctor Model for Implementation Research.

Results:

The telerehabilitation program received 175 new referrals over 8-months. Of those eligible, 123/150 (82%) commenced. There were no major adverse events. Adherence to health coaching was high (80% scheduled sessions), but online group uptake was poor (n=36, 29%). Participants improved their self-reported physical activity levels (+110 minutes per week, IQR 90 to 401). Patients were satisfied with telerehabilitation, but clinicians reported a mixed experience of pride in rapid care delivery contrasting with loss of personal connections. The average health service cost per participant was AUD $1,104.

Conclusions:

Telerehabilitation is safe, feasible and improved outcomes for cancer survivors. Learnings from this study may inform the ongoing implementation of cancer telerehabilitation. Clinical Trial: not applicable