Digitizing Cancer Rehabilitation During and After Systemic Treatment: Feasibility Testing Implementation in South Baltic Countries
NCT ID: NCT06768918
Last Updated: 2025-06-17
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
RECRUITING
Clinical Phase
NA
Total Enrollment
300 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2025-03-19
Study Completion Date
2026-07-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Background
With increasing cancer incidence and advanced cancer treatment, the growing population of cancer survivors increases the demand on health resources worldwide. Over the last 20 years, physical rehabilitation has reached recognition as an essential component of cancer care due its effect on physical function, side effects of treatment, and quality of life. However, highly specialized health care can result in longer distances to rehabilitation facilities. Also, a heavy appointment schedule for patients in treatment tends to complicate participation in rehabilitation. Telehealth has shown promise in increasing accessibility to services, also rehabilitation. However, barriers to participating in digitally delivered rehabilitation might exist, including lower e-health literacy and internet access in rural areas. The aim of this study is therefore, to examine the feasibility of implementing digitally supported rehabilitaiton in cancer care during and after treatment.
Methodology In a multinational implementation study, the feasibility of implementation of digital rehabilitation will be tested in five South Baltic Countries (DK, SWE, GER, PL, LTU). Each site will host one feasibility trial for patients during cancer treatment and one for patients after, with n=30 patients in each fesibility trial (total n=300). The intervention will be needs-based, follow international guidelines, last from 8-16 weeks, and be delivered by trained Health Care Professionals (HCP's), either fully or partially digital. Mixed methods will be used to assess outcomes of reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance (RE-AIM).
Through the coordinated feasibility trials across five South Baltic countries, the investigators expect to learn about important factors in implementation of digitally delivered rehabilitation in different settings, cultures, and health systems. Finally, the investigators will bring recommendations for improving reach, implementation, and sustainability of digitally delivered rehabilitation across different settings.
With increasing cancer incidence and advanced cancer treatment, the growing population of cancer survivors increases the demand on health resources worldwide. Over the last 20 years, physical rehabilitation has reached recognition as an essential component of cancer care due its effect on physical function, side effects of treatment, and quality of life. However, highly specialized health care can result in longer distances to rehabilitation facilities. Also, a heavy appointment schedule for patients in treatment tends to complicate participation in rehabilitation. Telehealth has shown promise in increasing accessibility to services, also rehabilitation. However, barriers to participating in digitally delivered rehabilitation might exist, including lower e-health literacy and internet access in rural areas. The aim of this study is therefore, to examine the feasibility of implementing digitally supported rehabilitaiton in cancer care during and after treatment.
Methodology In a multinational implementation study, the feasibility of implementation of digital rehabilitation will be tested in five South Baltic Countries (DK, SWE, GER, PL, LTU). Each site will host one feasibility trial for patients during cancer treatment and one for patients after, with n=30 patients in each fesibility trial (total n=300). The intervention will be needs-based, follow international guidelines, last from 8-16 weeks, and be delivered by trained Health Care Professionals (HCP's), either fully or partially digital. Mixed methods will be used to assess outcomes of reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance (RE-AIM).
Through the coordinated feasibility trials across five South Baltic countries, the investigators expect to learn about important factors in implementation of digitally delivered rehabilitation in different settings, cultures, and health systems. Finally, the investigators will bring recommendations for improving reach, implementation, and sustainability of digitally delivered rehabilitation across different settings.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Involvement of Patients and Relatives in the Course of Cancer Disease
NCT01060761
Rehabilitation
Cancer
Relatives
COMPLETED
NA
Implementation of Physical Cancer Rehabilitation Programmes in a European Healthcare System.
NCT02205853
Cancer
Fatigue
UNKNOWN
NA
Rehabilitation Outcomes Study
NCT06674889
Cancer
Malignant Tumor
RECRUITING
NA
Balance, Activity and Quality of Life
NCT04772690
Advanced Cancer
COMPLETED
NA
The GP's Role in Cancer Rehabilitation: a Randomised, Controlled Study.
NCT01021371
HRQOL (Health Related Quality Of Life)
COMPLETED
EARLY_PHASE1
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Detailed Description
Introduction
Increasing survival rates in cancer patients has put an increasing focus on physical rehabilitation in survivorship. Physical rehabilitation plays an important role in the cancer care continuum by improving Quality of Life, functional ability and participation in everyday life. Often, however, patients may be unable to participate due to barriers related to resources, social support, distance to facility, a heavy treatment schedule and dealing with side- or late effects of treatment. Physical rehabilitation during primary, neoadjuvant or adjuvant oncological treatment could prevent loss of muscle strength, maintain or even improve physical fitness, alleviate acute toxicities of chemotherapy like fatigue, pain, depression and nausea. When entering the survivorship phase, it is also well-documented that survivors have difficulties meeting recommendations for physical activity, and the negative consequences are reduced survival and increase risk of lifestyle diseases and systemic late effects after treatment. Although physical rehabilitation is already recommended in international clinical guidelines, it is far from implemented broadly. Further, current studies indicate that there is socioeconomic inequality in who participates in the rehabilitation on offer. One reason might be the rurality of certain regions, costing patients many resources in i.e. transportation. Other reasons may include lack of resources to participate, both timewise, but also related to psychological, physical and social demands. Digital solutions may be beneficial in solving many of the barriers to participation and be a way to deliver "precision rehabilitation"; the right mode and dose to individual patients, taking personal preference and resources into consideration and utilizing them.
This study aims to feasibility test implementation of digital rehabilitation in 5 rural countries in the South Baltic.
Methods
Trial design This study is a multinational multisite feasibility study of the implementation of digitally supported physical rehabilitation in five South Baltic countries (DK, PL, GER, SWE, LTU) during systemic treatment (feasibility study 1) and after systemic treatment (feasibility study 2). The feasibility studies will be run as one-arm intervention studies.
Study setting and organization The current study is part of the Interreg South Baltic Program-funded project "AMBeR" (Advanced Modelling of Baltic cancer e-caRe). A total of seven partners from five countries are involved and are working on five different WP's. The following 5 of the 7 project partners are involved in the study (WP 4) are described here: 1) Angelholm Hospital, Region Scania, Sweden; 2) University Medical Center Rostock, Germany; 3) University Clinical Center Gdansk, Poland; 4) Klaipeda University, Lithuania; and 5) Zealand University Hospital, Denmark.
Each site will participate in the feasibility studies with á n=30:
1. early rehab (during systemic cancer treatment)
2. rehab@home (after completion of systemic cancer treatment).
Inclusion criteria
* ≥ 18 years
* Diagnosed with cancer (IDC: C00\* - C97\*)
Additionally, in feasibility study 1 (early rehab):
Participants should receive any systemic chemo/immunotherapy preferably (but not necessarily) with a duration of 8 weeks or more. Recruitment should be at earliest convenience preferably (but not necessarily) within 4 weeks of treatment initiation.
In feasibility study 2 (rehab@home):
Participants should preferably have completed chemotherapy/immunotherapy no more than 6 months ago but may be receiving long-standing maintenance and life-prolonging chemo-/immunotherapy.
Eligible patients are patients that have physical or psychological rehabilitation needs and that would normally be referred to physiotherapy or similar exercise specialist in cancer care, either as per normal practice or according to international guidelines.
Eligible health Care professionals delivering the intervention are those who according to local practice and authorization deliver usual care to the target groups specific to each site.
Choosing a digital solution Health care professionals/physiotherapists and the local study group at each site will be involved in choosing the digital solution to be implemented, and each site will select a unique digital solution to meet their criteria and needs. The selection is based on availability on the local market, targeted population, language availability, objectivity of movement feedback, possibility for interaction, and features for progression and regression of treatment programme. Further the demands for integrating the solution into existing IT systems is also considered. The advantages/disadvantages and costs will be weighed before a solution is selected.
Implementation
* describing the existing care process and identifying stakeholders.
* describing new care process, stakeholders and pathways in the new practice.
* Workshop 1:" setting the scene" context mapping, barriers and facilitators, solution design, action plan. Participation from all relevant stakeholders identified through context mapping of the care process. A patient representative will be involved and engaged in workshop if at all possible, and thereby contribute with the patient perspective on barriers and facilitators.
* Education and preparing HCP's in use of the digital technology and integrating it into the "toolbox" and a new professional identity.
* Workshop 2 "facilitating/supporting the ongoing process" mid-study, dealing with challenges, adjusting design, plan and support further implementation.
* Workshop 3 "picking the fruits of best practice" post-study, including examining learnings from the feasibility studies and evaluating finalized, ongoing and planed implementation.
* A logbook describing the process, actions and rationale of all steps of the implementation will be used for documentation throughout the intervention phase.
Following workshop 1, pre-study identification of expected barriers and facilitators for patients to engage in remote physical rehabilitation will be carried out through 4 steps:
1. Summary from literature review and past experience.
2. Matching most important barriers with strategies using the ERIC matching tool
3. Ranking strategies according to effectiveness and importance in the clinical setting each site by members of the study team across sites
4. Building on strategies to make action plans for implementation of the intervention each site.
Assessing Patient's and HCP's perspectives on determinants
Towards the final phase of completing the feasibility studies, the perspectives of patients' and HCP's on the important determinants for engagement in remote physical rehabilitation will be examined, applying the technique of Group Concept Mapping. The process will follow 5 pre-described steps and all activity will be online utilizing the software "GroupwisdomTM":
1. Brainstorming
2. and 3) Sorting, labelling and rating
4\) Generating a cluster rating map 5) Validation of the cluster rating map The process will be performed separately for patients and HCPs, inviting a representative sample of patients for one study and all participating Intervention delivering HCP´s for a second study. For the study where patients participate, there will be a translation process of all texts and prompts to the patients' own language and back again, for the researchers to process and analyze.
Quantitative outcomes The RE-AIM framework will be used for a systematic quantification of outcomes. A range of different outcomes, measurement methods and data sources will be used as outlined in outcome measures section. For the questionnaire all partners will translate a common questionnaire into their own language using a forward-backward translation process and pilot-testing the translated questionnaire on 5-8 patients.
Data collection and management A REDCap database will be created for all study outcomes and relevant data to be collected and safely stored.
All HCP's involved in data collection will undergo a thorough training and standardization program involving physical testing, patient-reported outcome collection, recording /database familiarization, and update on international clinical guidelines in cancer rehabilitation. Monthly audits will be carried out to secure rigorous data collection is homogeneous and follows protocol.
Participant and Non-participant questionnaires To obtain information about eligible patients who decline participation in remote physical rehabilitation, decliners will be invited to answer a short questionnaire, reporting on their characteristics, reasons for refusal and barriers for participation (see table 1, decliners). Those who accept participation will receive a larger questionnaire reporting further on Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Acceptability. PROMs and Acceptability scales outlined in Table 1 will be collected using validated questionnaires. If not available in the local language, a forward-backward translation will be carried out and validated in 2-4 patients.
Effectiveness evaluation At the initial consultation with a HCP, the patient and HCP together will set realistic goals for the intervention, using the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) to quantify meaningful functional goals relevant to the individual patient. As per usual care, these goals may be adjusted along the way according to the patient's health status development, and the number of times adjusted will be recorded in the database. At the beginning and the end of the intervention, the patient rates themselves on a 0-10 scale how close to reaching the goal they are, and a within-patient change score will be calculated.
Harms and drop-outs An ongoing and systematic registration of harms, drop-outs and reasons for drop-out, as well as if any of the aforementioned events are likely to be associated to the delivery method of the intervention will be recorded in the database on a day-to-day basis.
Economic/resource evaluation An economic analysis will be performed using collected process data evaluating time and resources used for the remote digital rehabilitation. Data in this evaluation will cover Administrative time and contact attempts, consultation time, physiotherapist/HCP's time used in preparation/tracking the patient progress, and patients transport time (saved).
Sample size in the feasibility trials Sample size of the feasibility trials was estimated based on considerations on ensuring sufficient gathering of experiences each site, backed up by literature on recommendations for sample size in pilot trials and feasibility studies. The decision from the consortium was 30 participants each site for each feasibility study, giving a total pooled sample of 30 participants x 2 feasibility studies x 5 sites = 300 participating patients in total. The number needed to screen and invite at each site will therefore be varying and these numbers will be recorded.
Relevant concomitant care Participants will be allowed to attend concomitant usual care supplemental rehabilitation for diagnosis specific needs that cannot be met by the involved health professional or with the digital tool selected. If a participant wishes to receive usual care instead of the intervention with digital rehabilitation, they will be put on the waiting list for that.
Statistical methods Mainly descriptive statistics will be used to analyze quantitative outcomes, although effectiveness will be assessed with a pre-post change score.
Ethics approval and consent to participate Ethics approval will be applied for in each participating country with local adaptions of this protocol.
Introduction
Increasing survival rates in cancer patients has put an increasing focus on physical rehabilitation in survivorship. Physical rehabilitation plays an important role in the cancer care continuum by improving Quality of Life, functional ability and participation in everyday life. Often, however, patients may be unable to participate due to barriers related to resources, social support, distance to facility, a heavy treatment schedule and dealing with side- or late effects of treatment. Physical rehabilitation during primary, neoadjuvant or adjuvant oncological treatment could prevent loss of muscle strength, maintain or even improve physical fitness, alleviate acute toxicities of chemotherapy like fatigue, pain, depression and nausea. When entering the survivorship phase, it is also well-documented that survivors have difficulties meeting recommendations for physical activity, and the negative consequences are reduced survival and increase risk of lifestyle diseases and systemic late effects after treatment. Although physical rehabilitation is already recommended in international clinical guidelines, it is far from implemented broadly. Further, current studies indicate that there is socioeconomic inequality in who participates in the rehabilitation on offer. One reason might be the rurality of certain regions, costing patients many resources in i.e. transportation. Other reasons may include lack of resources to participate, both timewise, but also related to psychological, physical and social demands. Digital solutions may be beneficial in solving many of the barriers to participation and be a way to deliver "precision rehabilitation"; the right mode and dose to individual patients, taking personal preference and resources into consideration and utilizing them.
This study aims to feasibility test implementation of digital rehabilitation in 5 rural countries in the South Baltic.
Methods
Trial design This study is a multinational multisite feasibility study of the implementation of digitally supported physical rehabilitation in five South Baltic countries (DK, PL, GER, SWE, LTU) during systemic treatment (feasibility study 1) and after systemic treatment (feasibility study 2). The feasibility studies will be run as one-arm intervention studies.
Study setting and organization The current study is part of the Interreg South Baltic Program-funded project "AMBeR" (Advanced Modelling of Baltic cancer e-caRe). A total of seven partners from five countries are involved and are working on five different WP's. The following 5 of the 7 project partners are involved in the study (WP 4) are described here: 1) Angelholm Hospital, Region Scania, Sweden; 2) University Medical Center Rostock, Germany; 3) University Clinical Center Gdansk, Poland; 4) Klaipeda University, Lithuania; and 5) Zealand University Hospital, Denmark.
Each site will participate in the feasibility studies with á n=30:
1. early rehab (during systemic cancer treatment)
2. rehab@home (after completion of systemic cancer treatment).
Inclusion criteria
* ≥ 18 years
* Diagnosed with cancer (IDC: C00\* - C97\*)
Additionally, in feasibility study 1 (early rehab):
Participants should receive any systemic chemo/immunotherapy preferably (but not necessarily) with a duration of 8 weeks or more. Recruitment should be at earliest convenience preferably (but not necessarily) within 4 weeks of treatment initiation.
In feasibility study 2 (rehab@home):
Participants should preferably have completed chemotherapy/immunotherapy no more than 6 months ago but may be receiving long-standing maintenance and life-prolonging chemo-/immunotherapy.
Eligible patients are patients that have physical or psychological rehabilitation needs and that would normally be referred to physiotherapy or similar exercise specialist in cancer care, either as per normal practice or according to international guidelines.
Eligible health Care professionals delivering the intervention are those who according to local practice and authorization deliver usual care to the target groups specific to each site.
Choosing a digital solution Health care professionals/physiotherapists and the local study group at each site will be involved in choosing the digital solution to be implemented, and each site will select a unique digital solution to meet their criteria and needs. The selection is based on availability on the local market, targeted population, language availability, objectivity of movement feedback, possibility for interaction, and features for progression and regression of treatment programme. Further the demands for integrating the solution into existing IT systems is also considered. The advantages/disadvantages and costs will be weighed before a solution is selected.
Implementation
* describing the existing care process and identifying stakeholders.
* describing new care process, stakeholders and pathways in the new practice.
* Workshop 1:" setting the scene" context mapping, barriers and facilitators, solution design, action plan. Participation from all relevant stakeholders identified through context mapping of the care process. A patient representative will be involved and engaged in workshop if at all possible, and thereby contribute with the patient perspective on barriers and facilitators.
* Education and preparing HCP's in use of the digital technology and integrating it into the "toolbox" and a new professional identity.
* Workshop 2 "facilitating/supporting the ongoing process" mid-study, dealing with challenges, adjusting design, plan and support further implementation.
* Workshop 3 "picking the fruits of best practice" post-study, including examining learnings from the feasibility studies and evaluating finalized, ongoing and planed implementation.
* A logbook describing the process, actions and rationale of all steps of the implementation will be used for documentation throughout the intervention phase.
Following workshop 1, pre-study identification of expected barriers and facilitators for patients to engage in remote physical rehabilitation will be carried out through 4 steps:
1. Summary from literature review and past experience.
2. Matching most important barriers with strategies using the ERIC matching tool
3. Ranking strategies according to effectiveness and importance in the clinical setting each site by members of the study team across sites
4. Building on strategies to make action plans for implementation of the intervention each site.
Assessing Patient's and HCP's perspectives on determinants
Towards the final phase of completing the feasibility studies, the perspectives of patients' and HCP's on the important determinants for engagement in remote physical rehabilitation will be examined, applying the technique of Group Concept Mapping. The process will follow 5 pre-described steps and all activity will be online utilizing the software "GroupwisdomTM":
1. Brainstorming
2. and 3) Sorting, labelling and rating
4\) Generating a cluster rating map 5) Validation of the cluster rating map The process will be performed separately for patients and HCPs, inviting a representative sample of patients for one study and all participating Intervention delivering HCP´s for a second study. For the study where patients participate, there will be a translation process of all texts and prompts to the patients' own language and back again, for the researchers to process and analyze.
Quantitative outcomes The RE-AIM framework will be used for a systematic quantification of outcomes. A range of different outcomes, measurement methods and data sources will be used as outlined in outcome measures section. For the questionnaire all partners will translate a common questionnaire into their own language using a forward-backward translation process and pilot-testing the translated questionnaire on 5-8 patients.
Data collection and management A REDCap database will be created for all study outcomes and relevant data to be collected and safely stored.
All HCP's involved in data collection will undergo a thorough training and standardization program involving physical testing, patient-reported outcome collection, recording /database familiarization, and update on international clinical guidelines in cancer rehabilitation. Monthly audits will be carried out to secure rigorous data collection is homogeneous and follows protocol.
Participant and Non-participant questionnaires To obtain information about eligible patients who decline participation in remote physical rehabilitation, decliners will be invited to answer a short questionnaire, reporting on their characteristics, reasons for refusal and barriers for participation (see table 1, decliners). Those who accept participation will receive a larger questionnaire reporting further on Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Acceptability. PROMs and Acceptability scales outlined in Table 1 will be collected using validated questionnaires. If not available in the local language, a forward-backward translation will be carried out and validated in 2-4 patients.
Effectiveness evaluation At the initial consultation with a HCP, the patient and HCP together will set realistic goals for the intervention, using the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) to quantify meaningful functional goals relevant to the individual patient. As per usual care, these goals may be adjusted along the way according to the patient's health status development, and the number of times adjusted will be recorded in the database. At the beginning and the end of the intervention, the patient rates themselves on a 0-10 scale how close to reaching the goal they are, and a within-patient change score will be calculated.
Harms and drop-outs An ongoing and systematic registration of harms, drop-outs and reasons for drop-out, as well as if any of the aforementioned events are likely to be associated to the delivery method of the intervention will be recorded in the database on a day-to-day basis.
Economic/resource evaluation An economic analysis will be performed using collected process data evaluating time and resources used for the remote digital rehabilitation. Data in this evaluation will cover Administrative time and contact attempts, consultation time, physiotherapist/HCP's time used in preparation/tracking the patient progress, and patients transport time (saved).
Sample size in the feasibility trials Sample size of the feasibility trials was estimated based on considerations on ensuring sufficient gathering of experiences each site, backed up by literature on recommendations for sample size in pilot trials and feasibility studies. The decision from the consortium was 30 participants each site for each feasibility study, giving a total pooled sample of 30 participants x 2 feasibility studies x 5 sites = 300 participating patients in total. The number needed to screen and invite at each site will therefore be varying and these numbers will be recorded.
Relevant concomitant care Participants will be allowed to attend concomitant usual care supplemental rehabilitation for diagnosis specific needs that cannot be met by the involved health professional or with the digital tool selected. If a participant wishes to receive usual care instead of the intervention with digital rehabilitation, they will be put on the waiting list for that.
Statistical methods Mainly descriptive statistics will be used to analyze quantitative outcomes, although effectiveness will be assessed with a pre-post change score.
Ethics approval and consent to participate Ethics approval will be applied for in each participating country with local adaptions of this protocol.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Cancer Rehabilitation
Cancer
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
NA
Intervention Model
SINGLE_GROUP
This study is a multinational multisite feasibility study of the implementation of digitally supported physical rehabilitation in five South Baltic countries (DK, PL, GER, SWE, LTU) during systemic treatment (feasibility study 1) and after systemic treatment (feasibility study 2). The feasibility studies will be run as one-arm intervention studies.
Primary Study Purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Blinding Strategy
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Digital physical rehabilitation
Feasibility testing the implementation of digitally delivered physical rehabilitation a) during systemic anticancer treatment and b) after completion of systemic anticancer treatment
Group Type
EXPERIMENTAL
remote physical rehabilitation
Intervention Type
OTHER
In this multisite international study, we feasibility test implementation of 4 different digital solutions for delivering interactive physical rehabilitation during or after systemic anticancer treatment. The contents of the intervention follows international recommendations for exercise during or after treatment for cancer.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
remote physical rehabilitation
In this multisite international study, we feasibility test implementation of 4 different digital solutions for delivering interactive physical rehabilitation during or after systemic anticancer treatment. The contents of the intervention follows international recommendations for exercise during or after treatment for cancer.
Intervention Type
OTHER
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
physiotherapy
exercise
rehabilitation
e-rehabilitation
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Diagnosed with cancer (IDC: C00\* - C97\*)
* Feasibility study 1 (early rehab): Participants should receive any systemic chemo/immunotherapy preferably (but not necessarily) with a duration of 8 weeks or more. Recruitment should be at earliest convenience preferably (but not necessarily) within 4 weeks of treatment initiation.
* Feasibility study 2 (rehab@home): Participants should preferably have completed chemotherapy/immunotherapy no more than 6 months ago but may be receiving long-standing maintenance and life-prolonging chemo-/immunotherapy.
* Feasibility study 1 (early rehab): Participants should receive any systemic chemo/immunotherapy preferably (but not necessarily) with a duration of 8 weeks or more. Recruitment should be at earliest convenience preferably (but not necessarily) within 4 weeks of treatment initiation.
* Feasibility study 2 (rehab@home): Participants should preferably have completed chemotherapy/immunotherapy no more than 6 months ago but may be receiving long-standing maintenance and life-prolonging chemo-/immunotherapy.
Exclusion Criteria
\- Cognitively unable to give consent to, or participate in, a digital rehabilitation programme as judged by project team staff.
Minimum Eligible Age
18 Years
Eligible Sex
FEMALE
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Klaipėda University
OTHER
Sponsor Role
collaborator
University of Rostock
OTHER
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Angelholm Hospital
OTHER
Sponsor Role
collaborator
University Clinical Centre, Gdansk
OTHER
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Zealand University Hospital
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Susanne Dalton
Professor
Responsibility Role
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Susanne O Dalton, MD PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Zealand University Hospital, Department of Clinical Oncology and Palliative Care
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Zealand Unievrsity Hospital
Næstved, , Denmark
Site Status
RECRUITING
University Medical Center Rostock
Rostock, , Germany
Site Status
RECRUITING
Klaipeda University
Klaipėda, , Lithuania
Site Status
RECRUITING
Medical University of Gdansk
Gdansk, , Poland
Site Status
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Ängelholm Hospital
Ängelholm, , Sweden
Site Status
RECRUITING
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Denmark
Germany
Lithuania
Poland
Sweden
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Totton N, Lin J, Julious S, Chowdhury M, Brand A. A review of sample sizes for UK pilot and feasibility studies on the ISRCTN registry from 2013 to 2020. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2023 Nov 21;9(1):188. doi: 10.1186/s40814-023-01416-w.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Stratford P, Gill C, Westaway M, Binkley J. Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiotherapy Canada. 1995(47):258-63.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999 Sep;89(9):1322-7. doi: 10.2105/ajph.89.9.1322.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Trochim WM, McLinden D. Introduction to a special issue on concept mapping. Eval Program Plann. 2017 Feb;60:166-175. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.10.006. Epub 2016 Oct 11.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, Proctor EK, Kirchner JE. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015 Feb 12;10:21. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Ryan M, Lam N, Wright K, Siderov J. Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Position Statement: 2022 update to the safe handling of monoclonal antibodies in healthcare settings. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2023 Dec;19(6):723-730. doi: 10.1111/ajco.13943. Epub 2023 Mar 10.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Sweegers MG, Altenburg TM, Chinapaw MJ, Kalter J, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Courneya KS, Newton RU, Aaronson NK, Jacobsen PB, Brug J, Buffart LM. Which exercise prescriptions improve quality of life and physical function in patients with cancer during and following treatment? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Sports Med. 2018 Apr;52(8):505-513. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-097891. Epub 2017 Sep 27.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Ibeggazene S, Turner R, Rosario D, Bourke L. Remote interventions to improve exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2021 Mar 24;21(1):308. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-07989-0.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Felser S, Behrens M, Lampe H, Henze L, Grosse-Thie C, Murua Escobar H, Rohde K, Albrecht I, Zschorlich V, Junghanss C. Motivation and preferences of cancer patients to perform physical training. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2020 Jul;29(4):e13246. doi: 10.1111/ecc.13246. Epub 2020 May 31.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Davies JM, Sleeman KE, Leniz J, Wilson R, Higginson IJ, Verne J, Maddocks M, Murtagh FEM. Socioeconomic position and use of healthcare in the last year of life: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2019 Apr 23;16(4):e1002782. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002782. eCollection 2019 Apr.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kennedy MA, Bayes S, Newton RU, Zissiadis Y, Spry NA, Taaffe DR, Hart NH, Galvao DA. Implementation barriers to integrating exercise as medicine in oncology: an ecological scoping review. J Cancer Surviv. 2022 Aug;16(4):865-881. doi: 10.1007/s11764-021-01080-0. Epub 2021 Sep 12.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Cormie P, Atkinson M, Bucci L, Cust A, Eakin E, Hayes S, McCarthy S, Murnane A, Patchell S, Adams D. Clinical Oncology Society of Australia position statement on exercise in cancer care. Med J Aust. 2018 Aug 20;209(4):184-187. doi: 10.5694/mja18.00199. Epub 2018 May 7.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Ligibel JA, Bohlke K, May AM, Clinton SK, Demark-Wahnefried W, Gilchrist SC, Irwin ML, Late M, Mansfield S, Marshall TF, Meyerhardt JA, Thomson CA, Wood WA, Alfano CM. Exercise, Diet, and Weight Management During Cancer Treatment: ASCO Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2022 Aug 1;40(22):2491-2507. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.00687. Epub 2022 May 16.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Patel AV, Friedenreich CM, Moore SC, Hayes SC, Silver JK, Campbell KL, Winters-Stone K, Gerber LH, George SM, Fulton JE, Denlinger C, Morris GS, Hue T, Schmitz KH, Matthews CE. American College of Sports Medicine Roundtable Report on Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and Cancer Prevention and Control. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019 Nov;51(11):2391-2402. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002117.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Lahart IM, Metsios GS, Nevill AM, Carmichael AR. Physical activity, risk of death and recurrence in breast cancer survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Acta Oncol. 2015 May;54(5):635-54. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2014.998275. Epub 2015 Mar 9.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Campbell KL, Winters-Stone KM, Wiskemann J, May AM, Schwartz AL, Courneya KS, Zucker DS, Matthews CE, Ligibel JA, Gerber LH, Morris GS, Patel AV, Hue TF, Perna FM, Schmitz KH. Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors: Consensus Statement from International Multidisciplinary Roundtable. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019 Nov;51(11):2375-2390. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002116.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Andersen HH, Vinther A, Lund CM, Paludan C, Jorgensen CT, Nielsen D, Juhl CB. Effectiveness of different types, delivery modes and extensiveness of exercise in patients with breast cancer receiving systemic treatment - A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2022 Oct;178:103802. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2022.103802. Epub 2022 Aug 27.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Related Links
Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.
https://amber.ku.lt/en/advanced-modeling-of-baltic-cancer-e-care-amber
Homepage for the AMBeR project, of which the AMBeR eRehab is a work package and separately registered study.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
p-2024-17503
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Early, Integrated, Specialized Palliative Rehabilitation
NCT02332317
COMPLETED
NA
Evaluation of an Oncological Rehabilitation Program as Part of the Promotion of Therapeutic Physical Activity in Adults Cancer Patients
NCT06945757
RECRUITING
Remote Physical Activity Programming to Improve Outcomes in Cancer Survivors With and Without Type 2 Diabetes
NCT06725953
RECRUITING
NA
Disease Course in Oncological Patients During Inpatient Rehabilitation and After Three Months Follow-up
NCT04842214
UNKNOWN
Rehabilitation of Women Following Treatment for Gynaecological Cancer; a Randomized, Controlled Study
NCT01304745
UNKNOWN
PHASE1
Prehabilitation & Rehabilitation in Oncogeriatrics: Adaptation to Deconditioning Risk and Accompaniment of Patients' With Cancer
NCT03659123
COMPLETED
NA
Rehabilitation - Physical Activity and Coping
NCT04245943
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
Survey of Post-Acute Inpatient Rehabilitation Safety Concerns in Participants With Cancer
NCT03656224
COMPLETED
Rehabilitation of Cancer Survivors in Denmark: The Effect of a Psychosocial Rehabilitation Course
NCT01086683
COMPLETED
PHASE2/PHASE3
Impact of a Comprehensive Cardiac Rehabilitation Program Framework Among High Cardiovascular Risk Cancer Survivors
NCT05132998
COMPLETED
NA
A Comprehensive Oncology Rehabilitation and Exercise (CORE) Program Among Breast Cancer Survivors
NCT04594473
COMPLETED
NA
Online Cancer-Related Fatigue Management
NCT05017597
WITHDRAWN
NA
Impact of Multimodal Telerehabilitation in Rural Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer
NCT07032584
RECRUITING
NA
Patient-centered Breast Cancer Teleprehabilitation
NCT05782504
UNKNOWN
NA
Patient-centered REhabilitation Program to Advance REcovery
NCT07189000
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
Effectiveness of an eHealth Self-management Support Program for Persistent Pain After Breast Cancer Treatment
NCT06308029
RECRUITING
NA
Feasibility of a 8-week Telerehabilitation Program for Patients With Thoracic Neoplasia Receiving Chemotherapy
NCT02716493
UNKNOWN
NA
Physical Activity in Cancer Patients in an Oncology Day Clinic - Implementing a Person-centered Program Led by Nurses
NCT06999616
RECRUITING
Early Rehabilitation for Breast Cancer - A Randomized Control Trial
NCT04777786
TERMINATED
NA
Exercise and Nutritional Rehabilitation in Patients With Cancer
NCT03316157
COMPLETED
NA
Integrated Short-Term Palliative Rehabilitation in Incurable Cancer
NCT05984797
RECRUITING
NA
Effectiveness of a Modern Educational Intervention in Breast Cancer Patients
NCT03351075
COMPLETED
NA
Home Respiratory Rehabilitation in Advanced Lung Cancer Chemotherapy Per os
NCT03216863
TERMINATED
NA
Study of Physical and Psychosocial Rehabilitation Needs of Patients After Diagnosis and Treatment of Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer or Gynecological Cancer
NCT01216813
COMPLETED
Virtual Rehabilitation for Cancer Survivors
NCT05898789
RECRUITING
NA