Recent guidelines concerning exercise for people with cancer provide evidence-based direction for exercise assessment and prescription for clinicians and their patients. Although the guidelines promote exercise integration into clinical care for people with cancer, they do not support strategies for bridging the guidelines with related resources or programs. Exercise program accessibility remains a challenge in implementing the guidelines, but that challenge might be mitigated with conceptual frameworks (“pathways”) that connect patients with exercise-related resources. In the present paper, we describe a pathway model and related resources that were developed by an expert panel of practitioners and researchers in the field of exercise and rehabilitation in oncology and that support the transition from health care practitioner to exercise programs or services for people with cancer. The model acknowledges the nuanced distinctions between research and exercise programming, as well as physical activity promotion, that, depending on the available programming in the local community or region, might influence practitioner use. Furthermore, the pathway identifies and provides examples of processes for referral, screening, medical clearance, and programming for people after a cancer diagnosis. The pathway supports the implementation of exercise guidelines and should serve as a model of enhanced care delivery to increase the health and well-being of people with cancer.

Background: Although facility-based cancer rehabilitation and exercise programs exist, patients are often unable to attend due to distance, cost, and other competing obligations. There is a need for scalable remote interventions that can reach and serve a larger population. Methods: We conducted a mixed methods pilot study to assess the feasibility, acceptability and impact of CaRE@Home: an 8-week online multidimensional cancer rehabilitation and exercise program. Feasibility and acceptability data were captured by attendance and adherence metrics and through qualitative interviews. Preliminary estimates of the effects of CaRE@Home on patient-reported and physically measured outcomes were calculated. Results: A total of n = 35 participated in the study. Recruitment (64%), retention (83%), and adherence (80%) rates, along with qualitative findings, support the feasibility of the CaRE@Home intervention. Acceptability was also high, and participants provided useful feedback for program improvements. Disability (WHODAS 2.0) scores significantly decreased from baseline (T1) to immediately post-intervention (T2) and three months post-intervention (T3) (p = 0.03 and p = 0.008). Physical activity (GSLTPAQ) levels significantly increased for both Total LSI (p = 0.007 and p = 0.0002) and moderate to strenuous LSI (p = 0.003 and p = 0.002) from baseline to T2 and T3. Work productivity (iPCQ) increased from T1 to T3 (p = 0.026). There was a significant increase in six minute walk distance from baseline to T2 and T3 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.010) and in grip strength from baseline to T2 and T3 (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001). Conclusions: Results indicate that the CaRE@Home program is a feasible and acceptable cancer rehabilitation program that may help cancer survivors regain functional ability and decrease disability. In order to confirm these findings, a controlled trial is required.