Multiple organizations around the world have issued evidence-based exercise guidance for patients with cancer and cancer survivors. Recently, the American College of Sports Medicine has updated its exercise guidance for cancer prevention as well as for the prevention and treatment of a variety of cancer health-related outcomes (eg, fatigue, anxiety, depression, function, and quality of life). Despite these guidelines, the majority of people living with and beyond cancer are not regularly physically active. Among the reasons for this is a lack of clarity on the part of those who work in oncology clinical settings of their role in assessing, advising, and referring patients to exercise. The authors propose using the American College of Sports Medicine's Exercise Is Medicine initiative to address this practice gap. The simple proposal is for clinicians to assess, advise, and refer patients to either home-based or community-based exercise or for further evaluation and intervention in outpatient rehabilitation. To do this will require care coordination with appropriate professionals as well as change in the behaviors of clinicians, patients, and those who deliver the rehabilitation and exercise programming. Behavior change is one of many challenges to enacting the proposed practice changes. Other implementation challenges include capacity for triage and referral, the need for a program registry, costs and compensation, and workforce development. In conclusion, there is a call to action for key stakeholders to create the infrastructure and cultural adaptations needed so that all people living with and beyond cancer can be as active as is possible for them.
Background: Emergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice. Important sources of evidence are systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), but these can only be informative provided their quality is sufficiently high, which can only be assessed if reporting is adequate. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement. Methods: The top five emergency medicine related journals were selected using the 5-year impact factor of the ISI Web of Knowledge of 2015. All SRs and MAs published in these journals between 2015 and 2016 were extracted and assessed independently by two reviewers on compliance with each item of the PRISMA statement. Results: The included reviews (n = 112) reported a mean of 18 ± 4 items of the PRISMA statement adequately. Reviews mentioning PRISMA adherence did not show better reporting than review without mention of adherence (mean 18.6 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.8 (SE 0.5); p = 0.214). Reviews published in journals recommending or requiring adherence to a reporting guideline showed better quality of reporting than journals without such instructions (mean 19.2 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.2 (SE 0.5); p = 0.001). Conclusion: There is room for improvement of the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs within the emergency medicine literature. Therefore, authors should use a reporting guideline such as the PRISMA statement. Active journal implementation, by requiring PRISMA endorsement, enhances quality of reporting.
Background: A paradigm shift in health care from illness to wellbeing requires new assessment technologies and intervention strategies. Self-monitoring tools based on the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) might provide a solution. They enable patients to monitor both vulnerability and resilience in daily life. Although ESM solutions are extensively used in research, a translation from science into daily clinical practice is needed. Objective: To investigate the redesign process of an existing platform for ESM data collection for detailed functional analysis and disease management used by psychological assistants to the general practitioner (PAGPs) in family medicine. Methods: The experience-sampling platform was reconceptualized according to the design thinking framework in three phases. PAGPs were closely involved in co-creation sessions. In the ‘understand’ phase, knowledge about end-users’ characteristics and current eHealth use was collected (nominal group technique – 2 sessions with N = 15). In the ‘explore’ phase, the key needs concerning the platform content and functionalities were evaluated and prioritized (empathy mapping – 1 session with N = 5, moderated user testing – 1 session with N = 4). In the ‘materialize’ phase, the adjusted version of the platform was tested in daily clinical practice (4 months with N = 4). The whole process was extensively logged, analyzed using content analysis, and discussed with an interprofessional project group. Results: In the ‘understand’ phase, PAGPs emphasized the variability in symptoms reported by patients. Therefore, moment-to-moment assessment of mood and behavior in a daily life context could be valuable. In the ‘explore’ phase, (motivational) functionalities, technological performance and instructions turned out to be important user requirements and could be improved. In the ‘materialize’ phase, PAGPs encountered barriers to implement the experience-sampling platform. They were insufficiently facilitated by the regional primary care group and general practitioners. Conclusion: The redesign process in co-creation yielded meaningful insights into the needs, desires and daily routines in family medicine. Severe barriers were encountered related to the use and uptake of the experience-sampling platform in settings where health care professionals lack the time, knowledge and skills. Future research should focus on the applicability of this platform in family medicine and incorporate patient experiences.
