Mary A Kennedy1,2, Sara Bayes3, Daniel A Galvão1,2, Favil Singh1,2, Nigel A Spry1,2,4,5, Michael Davis4, Raphael Chee1,2,4,5, Yvonne Zissiadis1,2,4,5, Nicolas H Hart1,2,6, Dennis R Taaffe1,2,7, Robert U Newton1,2,7. 1. Exercise Medicine Research Institute, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA, Australia. 2. School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA, Australia. 3. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA, Australia. 4. GenesisCare, Perth, WA, Australia. 5. Faculty of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia. 6. Institute for Health Research, University of Notre Dame Australia, Perth, WA, Australia. 7. School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Employ the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance framework to evaluate the effectiveness of a co-located exercise clinic model in increasing access to exercise for people undergoing cancer treatment in a private clinic in Western Australia. METHODS: This retrospective evaluation utilised a mixed-method approach to gather feedback from key stakeholder groups involved with the exercise clinic. Questionnaires and workout summary sheets were gathered from 237 exercise clinic participants over the 50-month evaluation period. These were supplemented by survey results from 119 patients who received cancer treatment at the facility, and semi-structured interviews from seven radiation oncologists, eight nurses, and three accredited exercise physiologists involved with the exercise clinic. RESULTS: The co-located clinic demonstrated positive outcomes related to effectiveness and adoption. Participant feedback indicated satisfaction with the exercise programming (effectiveness), and clinicians were receptive to referring patients to the clinic (adoption). However, no clear implementation or maintenance plan was employed and overall reach (12%) remained suboptimal throughout the evaluation period. CONCLUSION: Co-locating an exercise clinic into a treatment facility does not in itself overcome the logistical challenges of providing integrated exercise services to people during cancer treatment. To enhance its utilisation, an implementation plan needs to accompany the intervention.
OBJECTIVE: Employ the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance framework to evaluate the effectiveness of a co-located exercise clinic model in increasing access to exercise for people undergoing cancer treatment in a private clinic in Western Australia. METHODS: This retrospective evaluation utilised a mixed-method approach to gather feedback from key stakeholder groups involved with the exercise clinic. Questionnaires and workout summary sheets were gathered from 237 exercise clinic participants over the 50-month evaluation period. These were supplemented by survey results from 119 patients who received cancer treatment at the facility, and semi-structured interviews from seven radiation oncologists, eight nurses, and three accredited exercise physiologists involved with the exercise clinic. RESULTS: The co-located clinic demonstrated positive outcomes related to effectiveness and adoption. Participant feedback indicated satisfaction with the exercise programming (effectiveness), and clinicians were receptive to referring patients to the clinic (adoption). However, no clear implementation or maintenance plan was employed and overall reach (12%) remained suboptimal throughout the evaluation period. CONCLUSION: Co-locating an exercise clinic into a treatment facility does not in itself overcome the logistical challenges of providing integrated exercise services to people during cancer treatment. To enhance its utilisation, an implementation plan needs to accompany the intervention.
Authors: Amy M Dennett; Bernadette Zappa; Rachel Wong; Stephen B Ting; Kimberley Williams; Casey L Peiris Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-05-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Mary A Kennedy; Sara Bayes; Robert U Newton; Yvonne Zissiadis; Nigel A Spry; Dennis R Taaffe; Nicolas H Hart; Michael Davis; Aileen Eiszele; Daniel A Galvão Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Elochukwu F Ezenwankwo; Daniel A Nnate; Godspower D Usoro; Chimdimma P Onyeso; Ijeoma B Anieto; Sam C Ibeneme; Yumna Albertus; Victoria E Lambert; Antoninus O Ezeukwu; Ukachukwu O Abaraogu; Delva Shamley Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Alexandre Chan; Kayleen Ports; Patricia Neo; Mothi Babu Ramalingam; Ang Tee Lim; Benedict Tan; Nicolas H Hart; Raymond J Chan; Kiley Loh Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Mary A Kennedy; Sara Bayes; Robert U Newton; Yvonne Zissiadis; Nigel A Spry; Dennis R Taaffe; Nicolas H Hart; Daniel A Galvão Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-09-12 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Mary A Kennedy; Sara Bayes; Robert U Newton; Yvonne Zissiadis; Nigel A Spry; Dennis R Taaffe; Nicolas H Hart; Daniel A Galvão Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 2.908