Clinical and Demographic Factors Associated With Follow-Up in a Hospital-Based Exercise Oncology Program. (June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dunston, Emily R.; Bai, Yang; Newton, Maria; Podlog, Leslie; Walker, Darren; Oza, Sonal; Zingg, Rebecca W.; Hansen, Pamela A.; Coletta, Adriana M.
• Is Part Of: Integrative cancer therapies. Volume 21(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-06
• Subjects: exercise -- cancer survivors -- follow-up -- hospital-based exercise program; Cancer -- Alternative treatment -- Periodicals; 616.99406
• DOI: 10.1177/15347354221105482
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1534-7354

Abstract

Objective: Despite the numerous benefits of regular exercise participation for cancer survivors, nearly 60% of survivors do not meet current guidelines. Hospital-based exercise oncology programs may be one strategy to promote exercise engagement as survivors have expressed a preference for exercise programs associated with a cancer hospital. However, follow-up rates in hospital-based exercise oncology programs can be low. Follow-up assessments are a critical component of exercise oncology programs as they determine survivor progress, allow for revision of exercise prescriptions, and demonstrate the effectiveness of the exercise program. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify clinical and demographic factors associated with not attending a 12-week follow-up assessment in a hospital-based exercise oncology program. Methods: We analyzed data collected from 2016 to 2019 (n = 849) from the Huntsman Cancer Institute's hospital-based exercise oncology program, the Personal Optimism with Exercise Recovery (POWER) program. Cancer survivors completed an assessment at the start of POWER and were encouraged to attend a 12-week follow-up assessment. Factors associated with not attending a 12-week follow-up assessment were identified using logistic regression. Results: Multiple myeloma cancer survivors were more likely (OR 2.33; 95% CI 1.09, 4.98) to not attend a 12-week follow-up assessment, whereas endometrial cancer survivors were less likely (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.18, 0.87). Greater travel time (OR 2.69; 95% CI: 1.83, 3.96) and distance (OR 2.37; 95% CI: 1.61, 3.49) were associated with not attending a 12-week follow-up assessment. Immunotherapy (OR 1.66; 95% CI 1.02, 2.72), waist circumference (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00, 1.02), overweight status per body mass index (OR 1.62; 95% CI 1.11, 2.38), and male sex (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.23, 2.35) were associated with an increased likelihood of not attending a 12-week follow-up assessment. Survivors with a higher baseline quality of life (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.93, 0.99) and peak oxygen consumption (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.95, 0.99) were less likely not to attend a 12-week follow-up assessment. Conclusions: Both clinical and demographic factors were associated with not attending a 12-week follow-up assessment in a hospital-based exercise oncology program. Understanding factors related to follow-up assessment attendance in exercise oncology programs can inform the development of targeted interventions to improve follow-up rate thus maximizing exercise support for cancer survivors.