Facilitators to the implementation of exercise into cancer care: a systematic review

Georgia L White; Mary A Kennedy; Brent J Cunningham; Riley Dunn; Jason Martin; Meegan Walker; Craig T Wallington-Gates; Hattie Wright; Bryan Chan; Grace L Rose

doi:10.1007/s11764-025-01948-5

Back

Facilitators to the implementation of exercise into cancer care: a systematic review

Journal article

Open access

Peer reviewed

Facilitators to the implementation of exercise into cancer care: a systematic review

Georgia L White, Mary A Kennedy, Brent J Cunningham, Riley Dunn, Jason Martin, Meegan Walker, Craig T Wallington-Gates, Hattie Wright, Bryan Chan and Grace L Rose

Journal of Cancer Survivorship, Vol.Advanced access

04-Jan-2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-025-01948-5

PMID: 41484497

Appears in Cancer Research Cluster Research Collection

Files and links (1)

pdf

s11764-025-01948-51.16 MBDownload View

Published Version (Advanced Access) Open Access CC BY V4.0

Abstract

Enablers

Physical activity

Clinical practice

Cancer

Purpose Although governing bodies urge the importance of integrating exercise into routine cancer care, facilitators to implementation have not been systematically identified and collated. This review aimed to summarise facilitators to implement exercise services within real-world settings. Methods A systematic review of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method studies was conducted (three databases, 13th September 2024). Reports were included if they documented the implementation of co-located exercise services (delivered onsite within cancer centres) or referral pathways to external exercise services from cancer centres. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 2.0) was used to code and synthesise facilitators. Results Of 8544 search results, 28 reports (full-text articles) describing 29 implementation efforts (structured initiatives to integrate an exercise service within a cancer hospital or centre) were included. One hundred and sixty-four facilitators were identified across all CFIR 2.0 domains. Facilitators existed within all CFIR 2.0 domains; inner setting (30%), implementation process (27%), innovation (21%), individuals (15%), and outer setting (7%). The most frequent CFIR 2.0 constructs identified were (i) access to knowledge and information, (ii) engaging recipients and deliverers, (iii) individual motivation, (iv) innovation adaptability, (v) reflecting and evaluating on the innovation and implementation. Conclusions The implementation of exercise services within cancer settings is influenced by an interconnected network of facilitators, with an organisation’s resources and willingness playing a central role. This review provides a generalised blueprint of facilitators and considerations to guide stakeholders in their own exercise oncology contexts. Implications for Cancer Survivors This map of facilitators provides potential opportunities for clinicians, policy makers, and researchers, to advance efforts to embed exercise in routine cancer care, so that all people living with or beyond cancer have the opportunity to benefit from it.

Details

Title: Facilitators to the implementation of exercise into cancer care: a systematic review
Authors: Georgia L White (Corresponding Author) - University of the Sunshine Coast
Mary A Kennedy - Edith Cowan University
Brent J Cunningham - University of the Sunshine Coast
Riley Dunn - Queensland University of Technology
Jason Martin - Queensland University of Technology
Meegan Walker - University of the Sunshine Coast
Craig T Wallington-Gates - University of the Sunshine Coast
Hattie Wright - University of the Sunshine Coast
Bryan Chan - University of the Sunshine Coast
Grace L Rose - University of the Sunshine Coast
Publication details: Journal of Cancer Survivorship, Vol.Advanced access
Publisher: Springer New York LLC
DOI: 10.1007/s11764-025-01948-5
ISSN: 1932-2267
PMID: 41484497
Copyright note: This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Data Availability: All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
Grants: Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship, RTP, Department of Education (Australia, Canberra)
Organisation Unit: Healthy Ageing Research Cluster; School of Health; School of Health - Nutrition & Dietetics; Cancer Research Cluster; School of Health - Sports & Exercise Science
Language: English
Record Identifier: 991198050602621
Output Type: Journal article

Metrics

6 File views/ downloads

25 Record Views

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Collaboration types: Domestic collaboration
Web Of Science research areas: Oncology; Social Sciences, Biomedical

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

Source: SDGs from InCites