No abstract

No abstract

Objective This literature review aims to explore the role of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic across the interdisciplinary cancer care team. Data Sources Electronic databases including CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Scopus, and grey literature were searched using Google Scholar up until September 2020. Conclusion While the safe and effective delivery of cancer care via telehealth requires education and training for healthcare professionals and patients, telehealth has provided a timely solution to the barriers caused by the COVID-19 pandemic on the delivery of interdisciplinary cancer services. Globally, evidence has shown that telehealth in cancer care can leverage an innovative response during the COVID-19 pandemic but may provide a long-lasting solution to enable patients to be treated appropriately in their home environment. Telehealth reduces the travel burden on patients for consultation, affords a timely solution to discuss distressing side effects, initiate interventions, and enable possible treatment additions and/or changes. Implications for Nursing Practice Global public health disasters pose significant and unique challenges to the provision of necessary services for people affected by cancer. Oncology nurses can provide a central contribution in the delivery of telehealth through transformational leadership across all domains and settings in cancer care. Oncology nurses provide the “hub of cancer care” safely embedded in the interdisciplinary team. Telehealth provides a solution to the current global health crisis but could also benefit the future provision of services and broad reach clinical trials.

Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of low-volume high-intensity interval training and continuous low to moderate intensity training on quality of life, functional capacity and cardiovascular disease risk factors in cancer survivors.MethodsCancer survivors within 24 months post-diagnosis were randomly assigned into the low-volume high-intensity interval training group (n = 8) or the continuous low to moderate intensity training group (n = 8) group for 36 sessions (12 weeks) of supervised exercise. The low-volume high-intensity interval training (LVHIIT) group performed 7 × 30 s intervals (≥85% maximal heart rate) and the continuous low to moderate intensity training (CLMIT) group performed continuous aerobic training for 20 min (≤55% maximal heart rate) on a stationary bike or treadmill.ResultsSignificant improvements (time) were observed for 13 of the 23 dependent variables (ES 0.05–0.61, p ≤ 0.05). An interaction effect was observed for six minute walk test (18.53% [32.43–4.63] ES 0.50, p ≤ 0.01) with the LVHIIT group demonstrating greater improvements.ConclusionThese preliminary findings suggest that both interventions can induce improvements in quality of life, functional capacity and selected cardiovascular disease risk factors. The LVHIIT program was well tolerated by the participants and our results suggest that LVHIIT is the preferred modality to improve fitness (6MWT); it remains to be seen which intervention elicits the most clinically relevant outcomes for patients. A larger sample size with a control group is required to confirm the significance of these findings.

High-intensity exercise interventions improved physical and physiological health-related outcome measures such as cardiovascular fitness and strength in cancer survivors. Given that high-intensity exercise sessions require a shorter time commitment, it may be a useful modality to improve health outcomes in those who are time poor. The risk of adverse events associated with high-intensity exercise was low.