Dissemination planning in exercise oncology trials-a systematic review of trial protocols.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Emily Smyth, Lydia Politi, Emer Guinan, David Mockler, Linda O'Neill
{"title":"Dissemination planning in exercise oncology trials-a systematic review of trial protocols.","authors":"Emily Smyth, Lydia Politi, Emer Guinan, David Mockler, Linda O'Neill","doi":"10.1007/s00520-025-09532-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The paucity of exercise rehabilitation services for cancer survivors indicates a research-to-practice gap. Dissemination and Implementation research addresses this gap by focusing on the adoption, implementation, and sustainability of evidence-based interventions. Dissemination, the active process of sharing research findings, is critical to the implementation of evidence-based practice. This systematic review examined adherence of exercise oncology trial protocols to the SPIRIT 2013 checklist items pertaining to dissemination planning, items 31a, 31b, and 31c, which address how dissemination is planned, authorship eligibility is considered, and what plans are in place to share data and the protocol.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science-Core Collection, Google Scholar, and the Central Trial Registry via Cochrane were searched (16/05/2024). Title and abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction were completed in duplicate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-six trial protocols were included, thirty-one (36.1%) did not report dissemination plans. Item 31 was reported as follows (n = number of trials, frequency (%)); 31a plans to communicate trial results to: participants (n = 19, 22.1%), healthcare professionals (n = 43, 50%), the public (n = 25, 29.2%), and other relevant groups (n = 22, 25.6%), 31b: author eligibility (n = 3, 3.5%) and plans regarding use of professional writers (n = 4, 4.7%), and 31c plans for granting access to participant level dataset (n = 28, 32.6%), full protocol (n = 1, 1.2%) and statistical code (n = 1, 1.2%). Peer-reviewed journal (n = 41, 47.67%) and conferences/professional meetings (n = 38, 44.2%) were the most frequently reported planned dissemination strategies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Reporting of the SPIRIT 2013 checklist Item 31 is generally low in exercise oncology trial protocols. Greater consideration of dissemination planning is required to support the implementation of exercise oncology research into practice.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/M8HFP.</p>","PeriodicalId":22046,"journal":{"name":"Supportive Care in Cancer","volume":"33 6","pages":"473"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12078369/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Supportive Care in Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-025-09532-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The paucity of exercise rehabilitation services for cancer survivors indicates a research-to-practice gap. Dissemination and Implementation research addresses this gap by focusing on the adoption, implementation, and sustainability of evidence-based interventions. Dissemination, the active process of sharing research findings, is critical to the implementation of evidence-based practice. This systematic review examined adherence of exercise oncology trial protocols to the SPIRIT 2013 checklist items pertaining to dissemination planning, items 31a, 31b, and 31c, which address how dissemination is planned, authorship eligibility is considered, and what plans are in place to share data and the protocol.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science-Core Collection, Google Scholar, and the Central Trial Registry via Cochrane were searched (16/05/2024). Title and abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction were completed in duplicate.

Results: Eighty-six trial protocols were included, thirty-one (36.1%) did not report dissemination plans. Item 31 was reported as follows (n = number of trials, frequency (%)); 31a plans to communicate trial results to: participants (n = 19, 22.1%), healthcare professionals (n = 43, 50%), the public (n = 25, 29.2%), and other relevant groups (n = 22, 25.6%), 31b: author eligibility (n = 3, 3.5%) and plans regarding use of professional writers (n = 4, 4.7%), and 31c plans for granting access to participant level dataset (n = 28, 32.6%), full protocol (n = 1, 1.2%) and statistical code (n = 1, 1.2%). Peer-reviewed journal (n = 41, 47.67%) and conferences/professional meetings (n = 38, 44.2%) were the most frequently reported planned dissemination strategies.

Conclusion: Reporting of the SPIRIT 2013 checklist Item 31 is generally low in exercise oncology trial protocols. Greater consideration of dissemination planning is required to support the implementation of exercise oncology research into practice.

Registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/M8HFP.

运动肿瘤学试验中的传播计划——试验方案的系统回顾。
目的:癌症幸存者运动康复服务的缺乏表明研究与实践之间存在差距。传播和实施研究通过关注循证干预措施的采用、实施和可持续性来解决这一差距。传播是分享研究成果的积极过程,对实施循证实践至关重要。本系统综述检查了运动肿瘤学试验方案是否符合SPIRIT 2013检查清单中与传播计划相关的项目,项目31a、31b和31c,这些项目涉及传播计划、作者资格的考虑以及共享数据和方案的计划。方法:按照PRISMA指南进行系统评价。检索EMBASE、MEDLINE、CINAHL、Web of Science-Core Collection、谷歌Scholar和Cochrane Central Trial Registry(16/05/2024)。题目和摘要筛选、全文审查和数据提取一式两份。结果:86个试验方案被纳入,31个(36.1%)没有报告传播计划。项目31报告如下(n =试验数,频率(%));31a计划将试验结果传达给:参与者(n = 19, 22.1%)、医疗保健专业人员(n = 43, 50%)、公众(n = 25, 29.2%)和其他相关群体(n = 22, 25.6%); 31b:作者资格(n = 3, 3.5%)和关于使用专业作者的计划(n = 4, 4.7%); 31c计划授予对参与者级别数据集(n = 28, 32.6%)、完整方案(n = 1, 1.2%)和统计代码(n = 1, 1.2%)的访问权。同行评议期刊(n = 41, 47.67%)和会议/专业会议(n = 38, 44.2%)是最常报道的计划传播策略。结论:在运动肿瘤学试验方案中,SPIRIT 2013检查表第31项的报告率普遍较低。需要更多地考虑传播计划,以支持运动肿瘤学研究的实施。注册:https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/M8HFP。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Supportive Care in Cancer
Supportive Care in Cancer 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
9.70%
发文量
751
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Supportive Care in Cancer provides members of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and all other interested individuals, groups and institutions with the most recent scientific and social information on all aspects of supportive care in cancer patients. It covers primarily medical, technical and surgical topics concerning supportive therapy and care which may supplement or substitute basic cancer treatment at all stages of the disease. Nursing, rehabilitative, psychosocial and spiritual issues of support are also included.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信