Compared to adults without cancer, cancer survivors report poorer health-related quality of life (HRQOL), which is associated with negative treatment outcomes and increased healthcare use. Cancer-specialized physical and occupational therapy (PT/OT) could optimize HRQOL; however, the impact among survivors with non-breast malignancies is unknown. This retrospective (2020–2022), observational, study of medical record data of 12 cancer types, examined pre/post-HRQOL among cancer survivors who completed PT/OT. PROMIS^® HRQOL measures: Global Health (physical [GPH] and mental [GMH]), Physical Function (PF), and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities (SRA) were evaluated using linear mixed effect models by cancer type, then compared to the minimal important change (MIC, 2 points). Survivors were 65.44 ± 12.84 years old (range: 19–91), male (54%), with a median of 12 visits. Improvements in GPH were significant (p < 0.05) for all cancer types and all achieved MIC. Improvements in GMH were significant for 11/12 cancer types and 8/12 achieved MIC. Improvements in PF were significant for all cancer types and all achieved the MIC. Improvements in SRA were significant for all cancer types and all groups achieved the MIC. We observed statistically and clinically significant improvements in HRQOL domains for each of the 12 cancer types evaluated.

Background: Understanding patient experience is key to optimize access and quality of outpatient cancer rehabilitation (physical or occupational therapy, PT/OT) services. Methods: We performed a retrospective mixed-method analysis of rehabilitation medical record data to better understand patient experience and aspects of care that influenced experience. From the medical record, we extracted case characteristics, patient experience data (Net Promoter Survey^®, NPS) and patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. We categorized cases as ‘promoters’ (i.e., highly likely to recommend rehabilitation) or ‘detractors’, then calculated NPS score (−100 [worst] to 100 [best]). We identified key themes from NPS free-text comments using inductive content analysis, then used Pearson [r] or Spearman [ρ] correlation to explore relationships between NPS, characteristics, and PRO improvement. Results: Patients (n = 383) were 60.51 ± 12.02 years old, predominantly women with breast cancer (69.2%), and attended 14.23 ± 12.37 visits. Most were ‘promoters’ (92%); NPS score was 91.4. Patients described two experiences (themes) that influenced their likelihood to recommend rehabilitation: (1) feeling comfortable with the process and (2) observable improvement in health/functioning, and described attributes of clinic staff, environment and clinical care that influenced themes. Likelihood to recommend rehabilitation was associated with achieving the minimal clinical important difference on a PRO (ρ = 0.21, p < 0.001) and cancer type (ρ = 0.10, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Patients who received specialized cancer PT/OT were highly likely to recommend rehabilitation. Feeling comfortable with the rehabilitation process and making observable improvements in health and/or functioning influenced likelihood to recommend. Rehabilitation providers should leverage the findings of this study optimize access to and quality of cancer rehab services.

Diminished health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is common among cancer survivors but often amendable to rehabilitation. However, few access real-world rehabilitation services. Hybrid delivery modes (using a combination of in-clinic and synchronous telehealth visits) became popular during the COVID-19 pandemic and offer a promising solution to improve access beyond the pandemic. However, it is unclear if hybrid delivery has the same impact on patient-reported outcomes and experiences as standard, in-clinic-only delivery. To fill this gap, we performed a retrospective, observational, comparative outcomes study of real-world electronic medical record (EMR) data collected by a national outpatient rehabilitation provider in 2020–2021. Of the cases meeting the inclusion criteria (N = 2611), 60 were seen to via hybrid delivery. The outcomes evaluated pre and post-rehabilitation included PROMIS^® global physical health (GPH), global mental health (GMH), physical function (PF), and the ability to participate in social roles and activities (SRA). The patient experience outcomes included the Net Promoter Survey (NPS^®) and the Select Medical Patient-Reported Experience Measure (SM-PREM). A linear and logistic regression was used to examine the between-group differences in the PROMIS and SM-PREM scores while controlling for covariates. The hybrid and in-clinic-only cases improved similarly in all PROMIS outcomes (all p < 0.05). The association between the delivery mode and the likelihood of achieving the minimal important change in the PROMIS outcomes was non-significant (all p > 0.05). No between-group differences were observed in the NPS or SM-PREM scores (all p > 0.05). Although more research is needed, this real-world evidence suggests that hybrid rehabilitation care may be equally beneficial for and acceptable to cancer survivors and supports calls to expand access to and reimbursement for telerehabilitation.

Background: Adults with cancer who are pre-frail or frail are at risk of poor outcomes. Geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended to assess and manage vulnerability and risk of frailty in older adults with cancer (≥65) and to inform referrals in supportive services, including rehabilitation. Yet, adoption of the GA in community oncology practice lags, and frailty among adults younger than 65 often goes undetected and/or unaddressed. We evaluated the feasibility of a GA-guided rehabilitation care model and assessed changes in patient-reported and performance-based outcomes after rehabilitation. Methods: Adults (≥18 years) starting systemic therapy at a community oncology practice enrolled in the study. The GA was administered online and monthly for one year. Frailty/pre-frailty was identified using a previously validated 44-item index. The oncology team was notified of frail/pre-frail patients and then made referrals to outpatient rehabilitation. Feasibility outcomes (recruitment, retention, fidelity) and participant acceptability [7 items, 0–5 Likert scale] were analyzed descriptively. Patient-reported and performance-based outcomes were examined using the paired t-test. Results: 48% of eligible patients enrolled (N = 141), and 83% completed at least one GA. Frailty/pre-frailty was identified in 40% of the GAs, resulting in 282 referrals to rehabilitation (99% fidelity). Acceptability scores ranged from 3.5 ± 1.7 to 4.7 ± 0.6. Participants who attended rehabilitation (52%) improved significantly in outcomes measuring health-related quality of life, mobility, aerobic capacity, and strength (all p < 0.05). Conclusion: Implementing a GA-guided rehabilitation care model was feasible and acceptable to patients receiving systemic treatment. Those who attended rehabilitation experienced significant improvement in patient-reported and performance-based outcomes.