Telemedicine Applications for Cancer Rehabilitation: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer is a significant public health issue worldwide. Treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy often cause psychological and physiological side effects, affecting patients' ability to function and their quality of life (QoL). Physical activity is crucial to cancer rehabilitation, improving physical function and QoL and reducing cancer-related fatigue. However, many patients face barriers to accessing cancer rehabilitation due to socioeconomic factors, transportation issues, and time constraints. Telerehabilitation can potentially overcome these barriers by delivering rehabilitation remotely. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to identify how telemedicine is used for the rehabilitation of patients with cancer. METHODS: This scoping review followed recognized frameworks. We conducted an electronic literature search on PubMed for studies published between January 2015 and May 2023. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting physical therapy telerehabilitation interventions for patients with cancer, including randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, feasibility studies, and usability studies. In total, 21 studies met the criteria and were included in the final review. RESULTS: Our search yielded 37 papers, with 21 included in the final review. Randomized controlled trials comprised 47% (n=10) of the studies, with feasibility studies at 33% (n=7) and usability studies at 19% (n=4). Sample sizes were typically 50 or fewer participants in 57% (n=12) of the reports. Participants were generally aged 65 years or younger (n=17, 81%), with a balanced gender distribution. Organ-specific cancers were the focus of 66% (n=14) of the papers, while 28% (n=6) included patients who were in the posttreatment period. Web-based systems were the most used technology (n=13, 61%), followed by phone call or SMS text messaging-based systems (n=9, 42%) and mobile apps (n=5, 23%). Exercise programs were mainly home based (n=19, 90%) and included aerobic (n=19, 90%), resistance (n=13, 61%), and flexibility training (n=7, 33%). Outcomes included improvements in functional capacity, cognitive functioning, and QoL (n=10, 47%); reductions in pain and hospital length of stay; and enhancements in fatigue, physical and emotional well-being, and anxiety. Positive effects on feasibility (n=3, 14%), acceptability (n=8, 38%), and cost-effectiveness (n=2, 9%) were also noted. Functional outcomes were frequently assessed (n=19, 71%) with tools like the 6-minute walk test and grip strength tests. CONCLUSIONS: Telerehabilitation for patients with cancer is beneficial and feasible, with diverse approaches in study design, technologies, exercises, and outcomes. Future research should focus on developing standardized methodologies, incorporating objective measures, and exploring emerging technologies like virtual reality, wearable or noncontact sensors, and artificial intelligence to optimize telerehabilitation interventions. Addressing these areas can enhance clinical practice and improve outcomes for remote rehabilitation with patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".