This individual patient data meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of exercise on quality of life (QoL) and physical function (PF) in patients with cancer, and to identify moderator effects of demographic (age, sex, marital status, education), clinical (body mass index, cancer type, presence of metastasis), intervention-related (intervention timing, delivery mode and duration, and type of control group), and exercise-related (exercise frequency, intensity, type, time) characteristics. Relevant published and unpublished studies were identified in September 2012 via PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, reference checking and personal communications. Principle investigators of all 69 eligible trials were requested to share IPD from their study. IPD from 34 randomised controlled trials (n=4519 patients) that evaluated the effects of exercise compared to a usual care, wait-list or attention control group on QoL and PF in adult patients with cancer were retrieved and pooled. Linear mixed-effect models were used to evaluate the effects of the exercise on post-intervention outcome values (z-score) adjusting for baseline values. Moderator effects were studies by testing interactions. Exercise significantly improved QoL (β=0.15, 95%CI=0.10;0.20) and PF (β=0.18, 95%CI=0.13;0.23). The effects were not moderated by demographic, clinical or exercise characteristics. Effects on QoL (β=0.13, 95%CI=0.03;0.22) and PF (β=0.10, 95%CI=0.01;0.20) were significantly larger for supervised than unsupervised interventions. In conclusion, exercise, and particularly supervised exercise, effectively improves QoL and PF in patients with cancer with different demographic and clinical characteristics during and following treatment. Although effect sizes are small, there is consistent empirical evidence to support implementation of exercise as part of cancer care.

Background The study of disparities in minority recruitment to cancer clinical trials has focused primarily on inquiries among minority populations. Yet, very little is known about the perceptions of individuals actively involved in minority recruitment to clinical trials within cancer centers. Therefore, we sought to assess the perspectives of cancer center clinical and research personnel on barriers and facilitators to minority recruitment. Methods We conducted 91 qualitative interviews at 5 U.S. cancer centers among 4 stakeholder groups: cancer center leaders, principal investigators, research staff, and referring clinicians. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Qualitative analyses of response data was focused on identifying prominent themes related to barriers and facilitators to minority recruitment. Results The perspectives of the 4 stakeholder groups were largely overlapping with some variations based on their unique roles in minority recruitment. Four prominent themes were identified: 1) Racial and ethnic minorities are influenced by varying degrees of skepticism related to trial participation; 2) Potential minority participants often face multi-level barriers that preclude them from being offered an opportunity to participate in a clinical trial; 3) Facilitators at both the institutional- and participant-level potentially encourage minority recruitment; and 4) Variation between internal and external trial referral procedures may limit clinical trial opportunities for racial and ethnic minorities. Conclusions Multi-level approaches are needed to address barriers and optimize facilitators within cancer centers to enhance minority recruitment for cancer clinical trials.

In addition to clinical characteristics, research methodologic issues are likely to be major determinants of variability in published breast cancer genetic testing uptake rates. An understanding of these issues will clarify to clinicians why their clinical experience may not be congruent with published rates and help guide future research.

Background In recent years, extensive attention has been paid to the possibility that bias among health care professionals contributes to health disparities. In its 2003 report, the Institute of Medicine concluded that bias against racial minorities may affect communication or care offered. However, to the authors' knowledge, the role of bias within the context of recruitment of racial and ethnic minorities to cancer clinical trials has not been explored to date. Therefore, the authors assessed the experiences of clinical and research personnel related to factors influencing the recruitment of racial and ethnic minorities for cancer clinical trials. Methods A total of 91 qualitative interviews were conducted at 5 US cancer centers among 4 stakeholder groups: 1) cancer center leaders; 2) principal investigators; 3) referring clinicians; and 4) research staff. Data analysis was conducted using a content analysis approach to generate themes from the transcribed interviews. Results Five prominent themes emerged: 1) recruitment interactions with potential minority participants were perceived to be challenging; 2) potential minority participants were not perceived to be ideal study candidates; 3) a combination of clinic‐level barriers and negative perceptions of minority study participants led to providers withholding clinical trial opportunities from potential minority participants; 4) when clinical trial recruitment practices were tailored to minority patients, addressing research misconceptions to build trust was a common strategy; 5) for some respondents, race was perceived as irrelevant when screening and recruiting potential minority participants for clinical trials. Conclusions Not only did some respondents view racial and ethnic minorities as less promising participants, some respondents reported withholding trial opportunities from minorities based on these perceptions. Some providers endorsed using tailored recruitment strategies whereas others eschewed race as a factor in trial recruitment. The presence of bias and stereotyping among clinical and research professionals recruiting for cancer clinical trials should be considered when designing interventions to increase minority enrollment.

Purpose/Objectives To determine facilitators and barriers to managing patient loss from the combined perspectives of oncology nurses and to extract essential components of a supportive intervention. Research Approach Qualitative, descriptive. Setting The comprehensive National Cancer Institute–designated cancer center of a mid-Atlantic university teaching hospital. Participants 34 nurses from inpatient and outpatient adult and pediatric oncology units. Methodologic Approach Focus groups were held with oncology staff nurses to identify challenges regarding work-related bereavement, current support for managing grief and loss, and how to support interpersonal functioning and resiliency. Main Research Variables Work-related bereavement, bereavement support, and interventions and management strategies for bereavement and loss. Findings Two primary themes emerged: dimensions of work-related loss and working through bereavement. Participants also provided many concrete suggestions for the creation of a supportive self-care environment. Conclusions Support issues were numerous, multilevel, and varied. However, addressing those concerns can improve job satisfaction and decrease compassion fatigue. The findings lay the foundation for appropriate interventions to assist nurses in managing those situations. Interpretation Administrators, managers, and individuals interested in furthering the multifaceted goals of oncology care, including nurses themselves, are challenged to create and maintain mutually supportive environments for providing optimal care to patients and families.