Exercise-based cancer telerehabilitation is safe but not superior to a single session of physiotherapy for improving quality of life: a randomised trial

IF 9.4 1区医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS

Journal of Physiotherapy Pub Date : 2026-07-01 Epub Date: 2026-06-29 DOI:10.1016/j.jphys.2026.06.008

Amy M Dennett, Nora Shields, Christian Barton, Germaine Tan, Katherine E Harding, Casey L Peiris, Phillip Parente, Lauren Lynch, David Lim, Nicholas F Taylor

{"title":"Exercise-based cancer telerehabilitation is safe but not superior to a single session of physiotherapy for improving quality of life: a randomised trial","authors":"Amy M Dennett, Nora Shields, Christian Barton, Germaine Tan, Katherine E Harding, Casey L Peiris, Phillip Parente, Lauren Lynch, David Lim, Nicholas F Taylor","doi":"10.1016/j.jphys.2026.06.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Questions</h3><div>What is the effect of group exercise–based telerehabilitation compared with a single session of in-person assessment and advice on health-related quality of life in cancer survivors? What are the effects on activity, function, safety and cost-effectiveness?</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>An assessor-blinded, pragmatic randomised controlled trial with embedded cost analysis, concealed allocation and intention-to-treat analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><div>Adult cancer survivors with any cancer diagnosis who were receiving treatment or within 12 months of treatment completion.</div></div><div><h3>Intervention</h3><div>The experimental group received an 8-week, twice-weekly, physiotherapist-led exercise group via videoconferencing, supplemented with support resources and a single in-person session of assessment and advice (TeleCaRe). The control group received a single in-person session of exercise assessment and advice.</div></div><div><h3>Outcome measures</h3><div>Assessments were completed at baseline, after the intervention (week 9) and at follow-up (week 26). The primary outcome was health-related quality of life, measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, at week 9. Secondary measures were walking capacity (6-minute walk test), physical activity (accelerometer), self-efficacy (Health Action Process Approach Questionnaire), adverse events, and health service and cost data.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In total, 117 participants were recruited. Their mean age was 59 years, 82 (70%) were female, and 47 (40%) had breast cancer. Participants attended an average of seven out of 16 sessions (SD 6). There were no major adverse events. Intention-to-treat analysis found that TeleCaRe was not superior for improving quality of life (MD –5.3 units, 95% CI –13.3 to 2.6) or any secondary outcomes. TeleCaRe cost AU$363 per participant.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Group exercise–based cancer telerehabilitation was safe but attendance was poor. The addition of telerehabilitation to assessment and advice was not superior to a single in-person physiotherapy session alone for improving quality of life.</div></div><div><h3>Registration</h3><div>ACTRN12621001417875.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Physiotherapy","volume":"72 3","pages":"Pages 200-208"},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1836955326000603","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Questions

What is the effect of group exercise–based telerehabilitation compared with a single session of in-person assessment and advice on health-related quality of life in cancer survivors? What are the effects on activity, function, safety and cost-effectiveness?

Design

An assessor-blinded, pragmatic randomised controlled trial with embedded cost analysis, concealed allocation and intention-to-treat analysis.

Participants

Adult cancer survivors with any cancer diagnosis who were receiving treatment or within 12 months of treatment completion.

Intervention

The experimental group received an 8-week, twice-weekly, physiotherapist-led exercise group via videoconferencing, supplemented with support resources and a single in-person session of assessment and advice (TeleCaRe). The control group received a single in-person session of exercise assessment and advice.

Outcome measures

Assessments were completed at baseline, after the intervention (week 9) and at follow-up (week 26). The primary outcome was health-related quality of life, measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, at week 9. Secondary measures were walking capacity (6-minute walk test), physical activity (accelerometer), self-efficacy (Health Action Process Approach Questionnaire), adverse events, and health service and cost data.

Results

In total, 117 participants were recruited. Their mean age was 59 years, 82 (70%) were female, and 47 (40%) had breast cancer. Participants attended an average of seven out of 16 sessions (SD 6). There were no major adverse events. Intention-to-treat analysis found that TeleCaRe was not superior for improving quality of life (MD –5.3 units, 95% CI –13.3 to 2.6) or any secondary outcomes. TeleCaRe cost AU$363 per participant.

Conclusion

Group exercise–based cancer telerehabilitation was safe but attendance was poor. The addition of telerehabilitation to assessment and advice was not superior to a single in-person physiotherapy session alone for improving quality of life.

Registration

ACTRN12621001417875.

查看原文本刊更多论文

基于运动的癌症远程康复是安全的，但在改善生活质量方面并不优于单次物理治疗：一项随机试验。

问题：在癌症幸存者的健康相关生活质量方面，与单独的面对面评估和建议相比，团体运动远程康复的效果如何？对活动、功能、安全性和成本效益有什么影响？设计：一项评估者盲法、实用的随机对照试验，内含成本分析、隐藏分配和治疗意向分析。参与者：患有任何癌症诊断的成年癌症幸存者，正在接受治疗或在12个月内完成治疗。干预：实验组接受为期8周，每周两次，物理治疗师领导的运动小组，通过视频会议，辅以支持资源和一次面对面的评估和建议会议（TeleCaRe）。对照组接受了一次单独的运动评估和建议。结果测量：在基线、干预后（第9周）和随访时（第26周）完成评估。主要结果是与健康相关的生活质量，在第9周使用欧洲癌症研究和治疗组织生活质量问卷核心30进行测量。次要测量是步行能力（6分钟步行测试）、身体活动（加速度计）、自我效能感（健康行动过程方法问卷）、不良事件以及健康服务和成本数据。结果：共招募了117名参与者。平均年龄59岁，82人（70%）为女性，47人（40%）患有乳腺癌。参与者平均参加了16次会议中的7次（SD 6）。无重大不良事件发生。意向治疗分析发现，TeleCaRe在改善生活质量（MD -5.3单位，95% CI -13.3至2.6）或任何次要结局方面并不优越。TeleCaRe每位参与者的费用为363澳元。结论：团体运动基础癌症远程康复是安全的，但出勤率较差。在改善生活质量方面，远程康复与评估和建议的结合并不优于单独的面对面物理治疗。注册:ACTRN12621001417875。

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

Journal of Physiotherapy ORTHOPEDICS-REHABILITATION

CiteScore

11.40

自引率

7.40%

发文量

审稿时长

72 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Physiotherapy is the official journal of the Australian Physiotherapy Association. It aims to publish high-quality research with a significant impact on global physiotherapy practice. The journal's vision is to lead the field in supporting clinicians to access, understand, and implement research evidence that will enhance person-centred care. In January 2008, the Journal of Physiotherapy became the first physiotherapy journal to adhere to the ICMJE requirement of registering randomized trials with a recognized Trial Registry. The journal prioritizes systematic reviews, clinical trials, economic analyses, experimental studies, qualitative studies, epidemiological studies, and observational studies. In January 2014, it also became the first core physiotherapy/physical therapy journal to provide free access to editorials and peer-reviewed original research. The Australian Physiotherapy Association extended their support for excellence in physiotherapy practice by sponsoring open access publication of all Journal of Physiotherapy content in 2016. As a result, all past, present, and future journal articles are freely accessible, and there are no author fees for publication.