Integrating Fitness Training in Oncologic Care: Lessons Learned from a Large Telemedicine Trial.

Abstract

Objective: To provide insights from patients and clinicians regarding the benefits and barriers of the introduction of a telerehabilitation fitness program into the oncologic care of people with late-stage cancer.

Design: This study is a qualitative assessment of the COllaborative Care to Preserve PErformance in Cancer trial, which involved the insertion of a telerehabilitation fitness program into the oncologic care of patients with late-stage cancer.

Setting: A large midwestern medical center.

Participants: Thirty-one patients who matched the overall demographics of the study participants as well as 3 oncologists, 2 physical therapist fitness care managers (FCMs), nurse pain care manager, and 2 supervisory physicians involved in the study.

Interventions: Five hundred sixteen patients with late-stage (IIIC or IV) cancer were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 arms: a control group that received usual oncologic care and 2 intervention groups. The members of the latter continued with their usual care but also received either 6 months of a fitness program, with or without the addition of pain management assistance. All components were delivered via telemedicine with the fitness program consisting of progressive resistance and walking components.

Main outcome measures: Perceived benefits and shortcomings of the intervention were obtained via written narratives from the patients and as well as through interviews with the oncologists, FCMs, nurse pain care manager, and supervisory physicians involved in the study.

Results: Thematic analysis revealed 87% (27/31) of the participants found the program helpful. Regular contact with someone who understood their situation, helped improve their function, and encouraged active engagement in their care was perceived as particularly beneficial. The FCMs who worked remotely with participants to coordinate their exercise programs agreed that regular interactions with the patient facilitated engagement, education, and meaningful goal setting. The oncologists were supportive of the intervention but had concerns about patient suitability. The supervisory physicians noted a number of institutional barriers such as oncology workflows and the need for better sharing of information across disciplines.

Conclusions: A fitness program delivered via telemedicine was perceived as beneficial by the patients, the FCMs, and the supervising physicians. Success hinged on the quality of the interaction between patients and the FCMs. Institutional barriers to implementation seem similar to those encountered by many new programs that need to be inserted into the workflows of busy clinics and practices.