Purpose: While calls have been made for exercise to become standard practice in oncology, barriers to implementation in real-world settings are not well described. This systematic scoping review aimed to comprehensively describe barriers impeding integration of exercise into routine oncology care within healthcare systems. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across six electronic databases (since 2010) to identify barriers to implementing exercise into real-world settings. An ecological framework was used to classify barriers according to their respective level within the healthcare system. Results: A total of 1,376 results were retrieved; 50 articles describing implementation barriers in real-world exercise oncology settings were reviewed. Two hundred and forty-three barriers were identified across all levels of the healthcare system. Nearly 40% of barriers existed at the organizational level (n = 93). Lack of structures to support exercise integration and absence of staff/resources to facilitate its delivery were the most common issues reported. Despite the frequency of barriers at the organizational level, organizational stakeholders were largely absent from the research. Conclusions: Implementing exercise into routine cancer care is hindered by a web of interrelated barriers across all levels of the healthcare system. Organizational barriers are central to most issues. Future work should take an interdisciplinary approach to explore best practices for overcoming implementation barriers, with organizations as a central focus. Implications for Cancer Survivors: This blueprint of implementation barriers highlights critical issues that need to be overcome to ensure people with cancer have access to the therapeutic benefits of exercise during treatment and beyond.

Background: Exercise has emerged as a promising therapy for people with cancer. Novel programs have been developed to translate research into practice; however, implementation barriers have limited their success in part because successful translation of exercise oncology research into practice requires context-specific implementation plans. The aim of this study was to employ the implementation mapping protocol to develop an implementation plan to support programming of a co-located exercise clinic and cancer treatment center. Methods: The Implementation Mapping protocol, which consists of five specific iterative tasks, was used. A stakeholder advisory group advised throughout the process. Results: A comprehensive needs assessment was used to identify the organization’s general manager as the program adopter; oncologists, center leaders, and various administrative staff as program implementers; and the operations manager as the program maintainer. Twenty performance objectives were identified. The theoretical domains framework was used to identify likely determinants of change, which informed the selection of eight individual implementation strategies across the individual and organizational levels. Finally, an evaluation plan was developed which will be used to measure the success of the implementation plan in the project’s next phase. Conclusion: The Implementation Mapping protocol provided a roadmap to guide development of a comprehensive implementation plan that considered all ecological domains, was informed by theory, and demonstrated an extensive understanding of the implementation context. Strong research-practitioner partnerships and effective stakeholder engagement were critical to development of the plan.

Background: Cancer rehabilitation and exercise oncology (CR/EO) have documented benefits for people living with and beyond cancer. The authors examined proximity to CR/EO programs across the United States with respect to population density, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and cancer incidence and mortality rates.Methods: This cross‐sectional study was conducted in 2022–2023. Online searches were initiated to identify CR/EO programs. Geocoding was used to obtain latitudinal and longitudinal geospatial coordinates. Demographic data were abstracted from the 2020 5‐year American Community Survey. Cancer incidence and mortality data were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. US 2013 Rural‐Urban Continuum Code (RUCC) classification was used to define counties as either urban (RUCC 1–3) or rural (RUCC 4–9). Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between being far from a program and census‐tract level factors.Results: In total, 2133 CR/EO programs were identified nationwide. The distance from a program increased with decreasing population density: rural tracts were 17.68 ± 0.24 miles farther from a program compared with urban tracts (p < .001). Program proximity decreased as the neighborhood deprivation index increased (p < .001). Exercise oncology programs were less common than cancer rehabilitation programs in tracts with a larger proportion of minority residents (p < .001).Conclusions: Prior research has documented that underrepresented populations have worse cancer‐related symptoms and higher cancer mortality. Herein, the authors document their findings that these same populations are less likely to have proximity to CR/EO programs, which are associated with improved cancer‐related symptoms and cancer mortality outcomes. To realize the positive outcomes from CR/EO programming, efforts must focus on supporting expanded programming and sustainable payment for these services.

Introduction: Integration of exercise into standard oncology care requires a highly skilled workforce of exercise professionals; however, competency requirements have not kept pace with advancements in the field. Therefore, the aim of this study was to obtain consensus on core competencies required for an exercise professional to be qualified to work with adults undergoing active cancer treatment.Materials and Methods: A three‐round modified electronic Delphi process was used. In Round 1, an international group of 64 exercise oncology stakeholders (i.e., exercise oncology professionals (n = 29), clinical referrers (n = 21), and people with lived experience (n = 14)) responded to open‐ended prompts eliciting perspectives regarding competencies needed for an exercise oncology professional to work with adults receiving active cancer treatment. Subsequently, only exercise oncology professionals participated, ranking the importance of competencies. In Round 2, professionals received summary feedback, ranked new competencies generated from open‐ended responses, and reranked competencies not reaching consensus. In the final round, professionals finalized consensus ranking and rated frequency and mastery level for each.Results: Consensus was reached on 103 core competencies required for exercise professionals to be qualified to deliver care to adults undergoing active cancer treatment. The core competencies represent 10 content areas and reflect the needs of clinical referrers and people with lived experience of receiving cancer treatment.Conclusions: The core competencies identified reflect significant advancements in the field of exercise oncology. Results will underpin the development of education, certification, and employment requirements for exercise oncology professionals, providing a critical step toward achieving routine integration of exercise into standard oncology care.

Background: Despite its therapeutic role during cancer treatment, exercise is not routinely integrated into care and implementation efforts are largely absent from the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate a strategy to integrate the workflow of a co-located exercise clinic into routine care within a private oncology setting in two clinics in the metropolitan region of Western Australia. Methods: This prospective evaluation utilised a mixed methods approach to summarise lessons learned during the implementation of an integrated exercise workflow and supporting implementation plan. Data collection was informed by the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework. Reports detailing utilisation of the exercise service and its referral pathways, as well as patient surveys and meeting minutes documenting the implementation process informed the evaluation. Results: The co-located exercise service achieved integration into routine care within the clinical oncology setting. Patient utilisation was near capacity (reach) and 100% of clinicians referred to the service during the 13-month evaluation period (adoption). Moreover, ongoing adaptations were made to improve the program (implementation) and workflows were integrated into standard operating practices at the clinic (maintenance). The workflow performed as intended for ~70% of exercise participants (effectiveness); however, gaps were identified in utilisation of the workflow by both patients and clinicians. Conclusion: Integration of exercise into standard oncology care is possible, but it requires the ongoing commitment of multiple stakeholders across an organisation. The integrated workflow and supporting implementation plan greatly improved utilisation of the co-located exercise service, demonstrating the importance of targeted implementation planning. However, challenges regarding workflow fidelity within and across sites limited its success highlighting the complexities inherent in integrating exercise into clinical oncology care in a real-world setting.