Dataset Information

The Exercise Oncology Knowledge Mobilization Initiative: An International Modified Delphi Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Exercise is vital to health and well-being after a cancer diagnosis yet is poorly integrated in cancer care. Knowledge mobilization (KM) is essential to enhance exercise opportunities. We aimed to (1) develop and refine a list of highly important exercise oncology research and KM themes and (2) establish the relative importance of the themes for supporting the implementation of exercise as a standard of care for people living with and beyond cancer.

Methods

Informed by the Co-Produced Pathway to Impact KM framework, a modified Delphi study approach was used to develop, rate, and rank exercise oncology research and KM themes through an international stakeholder workshop and a three-round iterative online survey. Open-ended stakeholder feedback from cancer survivors, healthcare practitioners (HCPs), qualified exercise professionals (QEPs), policy makers, and researchers was used to update themes between survey rounds. Themes were ranked from highest to lowest importance and agreement was examined across all stakeholders and within stakeholder groups.

Results

A total of 269 exercise oncology stakeholders from 13 countries participated in the study. Twelve final exercise oncology research and KM themes were produced. The final top ranked research themes were related to: (1) QEP integration into primary cancer care teams, (2) Exercise oncology education for HCPs, and (3) Accessibility of cancer exercise programs & support services. There was statistically significant agreement between stakeholders (p<0.001) and within stakeholder groups (p's≤0.02) on the general rankings of themes (i.e., some themes generally ranked higher and lower compared to others). Low Kendall's W statistics indicated variability related to the specific ranked order of the themes between stakeholders and within stakeholder groups. Moreover, there were key differences in the rankings for specific themes between policy makers and other stakeholder groups that highlight potentially important discordance in the research and KM priorities for policy makers that warrants further study.

Conclusion

These findings can be used to guide initiatives and align stakeholders on priorities to support exercise implementation as a standard of cancer care. Additional research is needed to better understand the differences in the proposed research and KM priorities across stakeholders.

SUBMITTER: Adams SC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8327176 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMost oncology trainees are not taught about the needs of older patients, who make up the majority of patients with cancer. Training of health care providers is critical to improve the care of older adults with cancer. There is no consensus about which geriatric oncology (GO) competencies are important for medical oncology trainees. Our objective was to identify GO competencies medical oncology trainees should acquire during training.Materials and methodsA modified Delphi consensus of experts in oncology medical education and GO was conducted. Experts categorized at what training stage proposed competencies should be attained: internal medicine, oncology, or GO training. Consensus was obtained if two thirds of experts agreed on the training stage at which the competency should be attained.ResultsA total of 78 potential competencies were identified, of which 35 (44.9%) proposed competencies were felt to be appropriate to be acquired during oncology training. The majority of the identified competencies pertained to prescribing of systemic therapy (n = 12) and psychosocial and supportive care (n = 13). No competencies related to geriatric assessment were identified for acquisition during oncology training.ConclusionExperts in oncology education and geriatric oncology agreed upon a set of GO competencies appropriate for oncology trainees. These results provide the foundation for developing a GO curriculum for medical oncology trainees and will hopefully lead to better care of older adults with cancer.Implications for practiceThe aging population will drive the projected rise in cancer incidence. Although aging patients make up the majority of patients diagnosed with cancer, oncologists rarely receive training on how to care for them. Training of health care providers is critical to improving the care of older adults with cancer. The results of this study will help form the foundation of developing a geriatric oncology curriculum for medical oncology trainees.

Project description:ObjectiveTo develop recommendations regarding opportunities and barriers for nature-based care in oncology contexts using a structured knowledge generation process involving relevant healthcare and design experts.DesignFour-round modified electronic Delphi study. Oncology patients' nature-based recommendations, uncovered in preceding qualitative investigation, were included in the first round for the expert participants' consideration. Key items (opportunities and barriers) were developed using data aggregation and synthesis, followed by item prioritisation and 10-point Likert scale ranking (1=not important, 10=very important). Descriptive statistics were calculated to assess items of highest importance representing expert recommendations.ContextOnline Delphi process constituting an electronic international survey.ParticipantsA purposive sample of 200 potential panellists (recruitment target n=40) comprising healthcare practitioners, managers, designers, architects and researchers were invited to participate; experts were identified via research networks, snowballing and systematic literature review.Results38 experts across seven countries (Australia, USA, UK, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark and Sweden) returned questionnaire 1, which determined consent and acceptance for participation. Initial response rate was 19%, and subsequent response rates were 84%, 82% and 84% for rounds 2, 3 and 4, respectively. The Delphi panel developed recommendations consisting of 10 opportunities and 10 barriers. The following opportunities were rated to be of highest importance: window views from clinical areas onto nature; outdoor settings, gardens and courtyards with easy and effortless access; and nature-based physical exercise adapted to patient requirements. Highest-rated barriers for nature-based oncology care included lack of knowledge and awareness about benefits of nature engagement and inaccessibility, not considering access requirements for the very sick and frail.ConclusionsExperts suggested and agreed on a set of recommendations, which represent critical considerations for the safe adoption of nature-based oncology opportunities. These findings fill a gap in understanding about helpful nature-based oncology care and may translate into oncology design and innovation.

Project description:IntroductionExercise is integral to health across the lifespan and important for people with chronic health conditions. A systematic review of exercise trials for chronic conditions reported suboptimal descriptions of the evaluated interventions and concluded that this hinders interpretation and replication. The aim of this project is to develop a standardised method for reporting essential exercise programme details being evaluated in clinical trials.Methods and analysisA modified Delphi technique will be used to gain consensus among international exercise experts. We will use three sequential rounds of anonymous online questionnaires to refine a standardised checklist. A draft checklist of potentially relevant items was developed based on the results of a systematic review of exercise systematic reviews. An international panel of experts was identified by exercise systematic review authorship, established international profile in exercise research and practice and by peer referral. In round 1, the international panel of experts will be asked to rate the importance of each draft item and provide additional suggestions for revisions or new items. Consensus will be considered reached if at least 70% of the panel strongly agree/disagree that an item should be included or excluded. Where agreement is not reached or there are suggestions for altered or new items, these will be taken to round 2 together with an aggregated summary of round 1 responses. Following the second round, a ranking of item importance will be made to rationalise the number of items. The final template will be distributed to panel members for approval.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was received from The Cabrini Institute Ethics Committee, Melbourne, Australia (HREC 02-07-04-14). We plan to use a stepwise process to develop and refine a standardised and internationally agreed template for explicit reporting of exercise programmes. The template will be generalisable across all types of exercise interventions. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Project description:Studies have shown that there is a deficiency in focused oncology teaching during medical school in Canada. This study aimed to develop oncology education goals and objectives for medical students through consensus of oncology educators from across Canada.In 2014 we created a comprehensive list of oncology education objectives using existing resources. Experts in oncology education and undergraduate medical education from all 17 Canadian medical schools were invited to participate in a 3-round modified Delphi process. In round 1, the participants scored the objectives on a 9-point Likert scale according to the degree to which they agreed an objective should be taught to medical students. Objectives with a mean score of 7.0 or greater were retained, those with a mean score of 1.0-3.9 were excluded, and those with a mean score of 4.0-6.9 were discussed at a round 2 Web meeting. In round 3, the participants voted on inclusion and exclusion of the round 2 objectives.Thirty-four (92%) of the 37 invited oncology educators, representing 14 medical schools, participated in the study. They included oncologists, family physicians, members of undergraduate medical education curriculum committees and a psychologist. Of the 214 objectives reviewed in round 1, 146 received a mean score of 7.0 or greater, and 68 were scored 4.0-6.9; no objective received a mean score below 4.0. Nine new objectives were suggested. The main themes of participants' comments were to minimize the number of objectives and to aim objectives at the knowledge level required for family physicians. In round 2, the participants were able to combine 28 of the objectives with other existing objectives. In round 3, 7 of the 49 objectives received consensus of at least 75% for inclusion. The final Canadian Oncology Goals and Objectives for Medical Students contained 10 goals and 153 objectives.Through a systematic process, we created a comprehensive, consensus-based set of oncology goals and objectives to facilitate the design of undergraduate medical education curricula and improve oncology education for medical students.