Physical activity has been deemed safe and effective in reducing many negative side effects of treatment for cancer survivors and promoting better overall health. However, most of this research has focused on highly controlled randomized trials and little of this research has been translated into care or policy for survivors. The purpose of the present article is to present a research agenda for the field to accelerate the dissemination and implementation of empirically supported physical activity interventions into care. We provide rationale for the role of basic, behavioral, clinical implementation, and population scientists in moving this science forward and call for a more coordinated effort across different phases of research. In addition, we provide key strategies and examples for ongoing and future studies using the RE-AIM (reach, efficacy/effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework and pose recommendations for collaborations between researchers and stakeholders to enhance the integration of this research into policy and practice. Overall, we recommend that physical activity and cancer survivorship research use additional study designs, include relevant stakeholders, and be more collaborative, integrated, contextual, and representative in terms of both setting and participants. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(5); 687–99. ©2014 AACR.

There are an estimated 14 million cancer survivors in the United States with this number expected to increase to 18 million over the next decade (1, 2). Cancer and its treatment are associated with deleterious psychosocial and physical side effects that may be chronic or have a delayed onset and result in compromised quality of life (QOL; ref. 3). In addition, cancer survivors are at increased risk for developing comorbid conditions (4, 5) and second primary cancers (6, 7) as well as premature mortality (8). Evidence indicates increased physical activity in cancer survivors is associated with reduced negative treatment–related side effects, enhanced QOL, and improved disease-specific outcomes (i.e., longer survival, reduced risk of recurrence, and mortality; refs. 9–17). Consequently, guidelines recommending physical activity for all cancer survivors (18, 19) have been developed.

Despite the benefits of physical activity, cancer survivors are at least as inactive, or more inactive, than the general population (20–22) and other populations with chronic conditions (23–25). Population-based estimates indicate that only about one-quarter to one-third (20–22, 26) of survivors meet the public health recommendations for aerobic or strength training activities. Although many factors (e.g., demographics, prediagnosis activity, disease and treatment characteristics, symptoms, and behavioral and socioenvironmental factors; refs. 27–32) may contribute to dismal activity levels in this population, the lack of widely available disseminable evidence-based physical activity programs for cancer survivors (33) may be particularly detrimental. A good example of this is the fact that only one such program has been included in the Research-Tested Intervention Programs database (http://rtips.cancer.gov/rtips/index.do). This is likely reflective of most physical activity interventions for cancer survivors being designed as randomized clinical trials (RCT) that, by design, are time and resource intensive and often ignore, or hold constant, individual (e.g., intervention delivery preferences, motivational factors, comorbidites, and symptoms) and contextual (e.g., resources, safety, and cost) factors that influence real-world intervention uptake and sustainability (33). Although efficacy studies have been important to establish the evidence base for the beneficial effects of physical activity, the inherent limited generalizability of this research precludes widespread dissemination and implementation (D&I; ref. 19). Although some recent studies have adopted more practical study designs in real-world settings (34–38), increasing the number of these types of studies and enhancing the generalizabillity of new and existing efficacy/effectiveness studies is a critical next step for moving research in this area forward (39–44). We recognize that there are some trials (e.g., those answering biologic mechanism or dose questions) in which not all suggestions provided are feasible to implement (e.g., these likely need to be conducted in controlled laboratory settings). However, even in these cases, investigators can take some steps to improve the eventual translation of their findings, for example, by including a more representative sample of survivors.

Factors limiting D&I of physical activity and cancer survivorship research are consistent with other scientific disciplines and include a predominant focus on discovery; limited study relevance and efficiency; and inadequate collaboration and coordination among scientists (basic, clinical, population, and implementation) and stakeholders (45–47). Fortunately, many existing limitations can be addressed through the application of two frameworks: (i) the translational research process (45–48) and (ii) RE-AIM (reach, efficacy/effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance; ref. 49). The translation research process identifies five phases for translating scientific discovery to population health impact (see Fig. 1; refs. 45–48). Each phase answers a different question, uses different methods, and informs every other making this framework particularly useful for identifying exactly what research is needed and how research at every phase (e.g., basic, clinical, behavioral, implementation, and population) can be more collaborative and coordinated (45–48). RE-AIM is a conceptual model designed to enhance quality, speed, and public health impact of efforts to move research into long-term effectiveness in real-world settings (49) and can be used to provide specific study design recommendations to enhance the contribution of each translational phase (T0–T4) in achieving the ultimate goal of translating physical activity and cancer survivorship research into practice.

Figure 1.

The translational science process for physical activity and cancer survivorship.

Figure 1.

The translational science process for physical activity and cancer survivorship.

Close modal

The purpose of the present article is to (i) summarize key facilitators for translating physical activity and cancer survivorship research into practice; (ii) recognize the importance of each T0 to T4 phase, highlight its role in translating research in this area to practice and argue for a more coordinated approach to advance this science; and (iii) provide specific recommendations for each RE-AIM element to accelerate the translation of physical activity and survivorship research into policy and practice.

The translational research process consists of five phases (T0–T4; see Fig. 1) that provide guidance about what is needed to successfully develop, implement, and sustain evidence-based approaches in real-world settings (45, 46). The translational process starts with the “discovery” of an opportunity to approach a health issue (T0). The first phase (T1) involves research from, mechanistic, basic behavioral, or clinical research resulting in the development of tests or clinical and nonmedical (i.e., policy, behavioral, social, or other public health interventions) interventions (45, 46). The second phase (T2) involves rigorous analysis and investigation of new intervention effects for improving health outcomes resultant in evidence-based guidelines and recommendations (45, 46). The third phase (T3) consists of investigations to increase uptake and implementation of evidence-based recommendations into practice. The final phase (T4) involves evaluation of intervention effectiveness/cost-effectiveness in real-world settings and population or public health impact.

A key characteristic of the translational research process is that it is nonlinear. Each phase is important and necessary, leads to new insights that fuel discoveries and contributes to knowledge integration by informing each and every other phase to, ultimately, enhance translation of science into practice (see Table 1). The translation process is driven by (i) ongoing and updated knowledge integration from basic, clinical, and population sciences; (ii) collaboration and transdisciplinary team science (50); (iii) multilevel analyses and interventions; and (iv) technology (51). Consequently, to accelerate translation, a collaborative, coordinated approach is needed among stakeholders and researcher across phases. Although studies must be designed to answer phase-specific research questions, the other phases and overall end goal of translating discovery into practice should be kept in mind. For example, although the main purpose of a T2 study may be to determine the efficacy of physical activity for fatigue reduction, the study may be delivered remotely (i.e., web based) with limited on-site appointments, if appropriate, thereby facilitating T3 and T4 research by using a more practical and feasible approach. Table 1 provides detailed examples, research needs, and role in translation for physical activity and survivorship research for each T0 to T4 phase.

Table 1.

Physical activity and cancer survivorship—stages of translational research examples, research needs, and translational impact

Key drivers across all phases: collaboration, knowledge integration, technology, multilevel interventions, and analyses
Research phaseExample(s)Research needsTranslational impact
T0 
  • Discovery that exercise is associated with reductions in metabolic syndrome in cancer survivors

  • Discovery that exercise is associated with increased disease-free survival

 
  • Examine physical activity in relation to chronic conditions, functional outcomes, cancer progression, survival, and potential intermediary endpoints

  • Examination of these relationships in diverse cancer types

  • Assessment of effects of dose–response using observational data

 
  • Provide scientific justification for future research

  • Identify exercise dosage forfuture intervention studies

 
T1 
  • Initial pilot physical activity intervention trial to examine the relationship between exercise and development of metabolic syndrome

  • Initial pilot physical activity intervention trial to examine inflammation as a potential mechanism underlying the survival benefits of physical activity

 
  • Cost–benefit analyses of physical activity in comparison with other currently available approaches to symptom and disease management

  • Animal and human models of exercise and cancer survivorship that mimic one another and the real-world

  • Determination of potential mechanisms underlying the health benefits for physical activity (e.g., aerobic fitness) and identification of intermediary markers for prognosis and survival

 
  • Provide scientific justification for widespread implementation of physical activity interventions

  • Determine safety of physical activity interventions

  • Mechanism data provide evidence for third party reimbursement and more personalized physical activityrecommendations

 
T2 
  • Large intervention trial to test the effects of physical activity on lymphedema in breast cancer survivors

  • Replication of efficacious physical activity interventions in low-resource settings

  • Development of evidence-based physical activity programs and physical activity guidelines

 
  • Common metrics for comparison

  • Innovative; more practical study designs

  • More diverse participants

  • Multisite collaborations

  • Fractional factorial and pragmatic trials to determine most effective intervention components and physical activity dosage

  • Studies to determine the MINC for specific health benefits

  • Use of technology to increase intervention reach

  • Synthesis of evidence to overcome barriers to physical activity participation

  • Evidence of long-term efficacy of physical activity intervention on behavioral and health outcomes

  • Multilevel analyses of factors influencing physical activity participation and intervention effectiveness

 
  • Strengthen evidence base

  • Provide evidence-based interventions to be tested in diverse settings

  • More generalizable findings; reductions in health disparities

  • Reduce implementation costs and increased intervention uptake

  • Facilitate development of individualized physical activity program recommendations

  • Increase focus on context and boundary conditions of effects

 
T3 
  • Implementation of evidence-based physical activity programs in multiple, diverse. and low-resource real-world settings

  • Assessment of factors that influence intervention success and implementation

  • Examination of the broader impacts of physical activity (e.g., QOL) and unintended consequences (e.g., sedentary behavior)

 
  • Implementation of evidence-based programs in multiple, real-world settings

  • Contextual assessment

  • Standardized intervention and training materials

  • Multilevel analyses of factors influencing physical activity participation and intervention effectiveness

  • Assessment of factors that influence the success of the intervention and implementation

 
  • Prevent and reduce side effects of cancer and its treatments at more global level

  • Establish optimal intervention implementation strategies

  • Establish sustainable infrastructure

  • Provide affordable, effective physical activity programs

  • Provide data on broader impacts of physical activity participation in cancer survivors

 
T4 
  • Measurement of physical activity and prevalence of targeted intervention outcomes (e.g., diabetes, depression) in survivors at the population level

  • Cost-effectiveness analyses for implementing evidence-based interventions in practice

 
  • Pooling of data resources that monitor physical activity behavior of cancer survivors

  • Pooling of data resources with behavioral and medical usage data

  • Focus on key institutions providing cancer care to conduct quality improvement projects

 
  • Inform policy development, future discovery, and intervention development

  • Potential improvements in quality of care/patient experience and population health and reduced healthcare costs

 
Key drivers across all phases: collaboration, knowledge integration, technology, multilevel interventions, and analyses
Research phaseExample(s)Research needsTranslational impact
T0 
  • Discovery that exercise is associated with reductions in metabolic syndrome in cancer survivors

  • Discovery that exercise is associated with increased disease-free survival

 
  • Examine physical activity in relation to chronic conditions, functional outcomes, cancer progression, survival, and potential intermediary endpoints

  • Examination of these relationships in diverse cancer types

  • Assessment of effects of dose–response using observational data

 
  • Provide scientific justification for future research

  • Identify exercise dosage forfuture intervention studies

 
T1 
  • Initial pilot physical activity intervention trial to examine the relationship between exercise and development of metabolic syndrome

  • Initial pilot physical activity intervention trial to examine inflammation as a potential mechanism underlying the survival benefits of physical activity

 
  • Cost–benefit analyses of physical activity in comparison with other currently available approaches to symptom and disease management

  • Animal and human models of exercise and cancer survivorship that mimic one another and the real-world

  • Determination of potential mechanisms underlying the health benefits for physical activity (e.g., aerobic fitness) and identification of intermediary markers for prognosis and survival

 
  • Provide scientific justification for widespread implementation of physical activity interventions

  • Determine safety of physical activity interventions

  • Mechanism data provide evidence for third party reimbursement and more personalized physical activityrecommendations

 
T2 
  • Large intervention trial to test the effects of physical activity on lymphedema in breast cancer survivors

  • Replication of efficacious physical activity interventions in low-resource settings

  • Development of evidence-based physical activity programs and physical activity guidelines

 
  • Common metrics for comparison

  • Innovative; more practical study designs

  • More diverse participants

  • Multisite collaborations

  • Fractional factorial and pragmatic trials to determine most effective intervention components and physical activity dosage

  • Studies to determine the MINC for specific health benefits

  • Use of technology to increase intervention reach

  • Synthesis of evidence to overcome barriers to physical activity participation

  • Evidence of long-term efficacy of physical activity intervention on behavioral and health outcomes

  • Multilevel analyses of factors influencing physical activity participation and intervention effectiveness

 
  • Strengthen evidence base

  • Provide evidence-based interventions to be tested in diverse settings

  • More generalizable findings; reductions in health disparities

  • Reduce implementation costs and increased intervention uptake

  • Facilitate development of individualized physical activity program recommendations

  • Increase focus on context and boundary conditions of effects

 
T3 
  • Implementation of evidence-based physical activity programs in multiple, diverse. and low-resource real-world settings

  • Assessment of factors that influence intervention success and implementation

  • Examination of the broader impacts of physical activity (e.g., QOL) and unintended consequences (e.g., sedentary behavior)

 
  • Implementation of evidence-based programs in multiple, real-world settings

  • Contextual assessment

  • Standardized intervention and training materials

  • Multilevel analyses of factors influencing physical activity participation and intervention effectiveness

  • Assessment of factors that influence the success of the intervention and implementation

 
  • Prevent and reduce side effects of cancer and its treatments at more global level

  • Establish optimal intervention implementation strategies

  • Establish sustainable infrastructure

  • Provide affordable, effective physical activity programs

  • Provide data on broader impacts of physical activity participation in cancer survivors

 
T4 
  • Measurement of physical activity and prevalence of targeted intervention outcomes (e.g., diabetes, depression) in survivors at the population level

  • Cost-effectiveness analyses for implementing evidence-based interventions in practice

 
  • Pooling of data resources that monitor physical activity behavior of cancer survivors

  • Pooling of data resources with behavioral and medical usage data

  • Focus on key institutions providing cancer care to conduct quality improvement projects

 
  • Inform policy development, future discovery, and intervention development

  • Potential improvements in quality of care/patient experience and population health and reduced healthcare costs

 

Most physical activity and survivorship research has consisted of observational studies and phase II clinical trials (T0–T2) examining the effects of physical activity on specific health and disease-related outcomes (45, 46). It is essential for research in this area to progress beyond T2 to include activities to drive translation of research findings into practice and policy (47). However, it is also necessary to balance the requirement for more practical, effectiveness research with the limited efficacy data currently available for the many potential combinations of activity characteristics and health outcomes (43). Because the current funding environment limits the feasibility of conducting RCTs for every exposure and outcome (52), it may be necessary to adopt the Institute of Medicine mantra “to act on the best evidence available” (53) and draw from studies other than traditional RCTs, including systems' dynamic models (54), N-of-1 (55, 56), comparative effectiveness research (CER; ref. 57), and fractional factorial designs [i.e., multiphase optimization strategy trials (MOST) and sequential multiple assignment randomized trials (SMART; ref. 58)]. This approach embraces the nonlinear nature of the translational research process and has the potential to simultaneously contribute to the evidence base, inform practice and policy, and, ultimately, move research in this area forward.

Figure 2 presents examples of factors that have constrained widespread D&I of physical activity interventions for survivors across T0 to T4 research. These factors include intervention characteristics, target setting context, research design, healthcare system factors, knowledge about physical activity behavior, physical activity measurement, and definitions and interactions among these factors (59–62). In addition, most studies have not engaged stakeholders (e.g., survivors; oncologists; and community organizations; nurses, administrators, and families; ref. 43). Failure to address these factors limits potential D&I and sustainability of existing interventions by reducing their feasibility, adaptability, and relevance to cancer survivors and intervention delivery systems (e.g., hospitals, community centers; refs. 52, 63).

Figure 2.

Examples of factors influencing D&I of current physical activity and cancer survivorship research into practice.

Figure 2.

Examples of factors influencing D&I of current physical activity and cancer survivorship research into practice.

Close modal

Ongoing and future research can contribute to overcoming barriers to D&I of physical activity and survivorship research. As detailed in Table 1, researchers at every T0 to T4 phase can contribute to translation without becoming a D&I scientist. This is only possible, however, if researchers adopt a collaborative coordinated transdisciplinary approach (50) and involve relevant stakeholders to integrate knowledge, ask novel research questions and design innovative and transformative studies (51). To optimize chances of success, investigators in every phase should consider the real-world context in which survivors live and attempt to incorporate this context in their science (52) by adequately mimicking the real-world clinical context (e.g., treatment protocols, symptoms), disease experience (e.g., cooccurring conditions, treatment toxicities), patient diversity/complexity (e.g., multiple chronic conditions, age), and variability in protocol adherence (64). These factors should be considered by T1 researchers in developing preclinical and human models (64) and alongside practice-based evidence (i.e., characteristics of interventions that have previously worked or failed in real-world settings) for T2 to T4 researchers (59).

Figure 3 uses cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention to illustrate how these principles can be applied in a more coordinated and collaborative manner. The initial step would be to form transdisciplinary scientific and stakeholder teams who will be actively engaged throughout the research process. First, scientists would corroborate with stakeholders to understand their needs, experiences, resources, and expectations with regard to factors that may influence the likelihood a physical activity program would be adopted, implemented, and maintained at both an individual (e.g., intervention setting, time commitment, and type of activity) and systems/setting level (e.g., staffing, time, and resources). It is important to recognize that stakeholder and researcher needs may not always be complementary. For example, although researchers and clinicians may be interested in CVD risk as an outcome, this may not be an important outcome to survivors. Thus, compromise may be required to achieve interventions and assessments amenable to both groups. Next, researchers would conduct rapid and recursive studies to refine preclinical and human models integrating data from the laboratory, stakeholders, and real-world implementation. This process would continue until the intervention strikes the proper balance of feasibility and effectiveness and maximizes the likelihood clinical and real-world environments mimic one another and effect estimates are accurate. The resulting physical activity intervention and prescription(s) would be safe, efficacious for improving CVD risk factors (e.g., cardiorespiratory fitness, lipid profile), and supported by stakeholders (52). The intervention could then be replicated in diverse settings to determine feasibility and effectiveness. Finally, when appropriate, interventions would be broadly disseminated and effects on CVD in cancer survivors could be monitored at the population-level using existing data sources (e.g., Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System; National Health Interview Survey; ref. 65).

Figure 3.

A more coordinated and integrated approach for translating research into practice: Exercise to prevent CVD in cancer survivors as an example.

Figure 3.

A more coordinated and integrated approach for translating research into practice: Exercise to prevent CVD in cancer survivors as an example.

Close modal

Although an integrated collaborative approach incorporating D&I from the start may be ideal, (66) it may not always be possible and is not without challenges. Regardless, immediate steps can be taken to enhance study relevance and D&I potential. We use RE-AIM to outline specific recommendations for enhancing D&I of physical activity and survivorship research across the T0 to T4 phases.

RE-AIM

RE-AIM has been used in more than 200 studies to plan, evaluate, and review health promotion and disease management interventions (67, 68) and is intended for use at all stages of research, from planning to evaluation to syntheses (68, 69). The five dimensions (RE-AIM) are related to internal and external validity and incorporate individual and setting levels. Applying these five dimensions to physical activity and survivorship research can address key issues in translation and increase the probability of D&I of this research into policy and practice.

RE-AIM recommendations for enhancing D&I potential across T0 to T4

Elements of these recommendations are intended to apply across T0 to T4, including basic, behavioral, clinical, and population sciences (45, 46). Overall, we recommend research in this area maintain its rigor, but strive to be more rapid, relevant, robust, recursive, and transparent (47, 70). Recommendations for each RE-AIM element are intended to encourage clinically relevant research that leverages existing resources and infrastructure, uses more efficient and innovative research designs and mixed methods (52, 71), and incorporates relevant stakeholders (43). Furthermore, adoption of a solution-oriented approach focused on improving the health of cancer survivors through physical activity in a sustainable way is encouraged over a problem-oriented, reductionist approach focused solely on understanding cause and effect relationships between activity and health outcomes (72). Finally, as single interventions are generally insufficient to create sustainable change, multilevel and multistrategy approaches are recommended (73, 74). Key strategies for addressing each RE-AIM element and examples of how to use these strategies in ongoing and future studies are detailed in Table 2 and described below.

Table 2.

Key strategies across T0 to T4 research phases for ongoing studies

DefinitionKey strategiesExamples—both ongoing and future studiesExamples specific to future studies
Reach The absolute number, proportion, and representativeness of individuals who are willing to participate in a given initiative 
  • Collect data on nonparticipants and use mixed methods to understand why people do not participate or dropout

  • Increase recruitment efforts to hard to reach populations

  • Expand eligibility criteria for interventions and observational analyses

 
  • Assess demographics/health status of nonparticipants

  • Involve key community leaders; snowball recruitment

  • Include individuals with other chronic conditions and those ≥65 whenpossible

  • Interview participants, nonparticipants and dropouts

 
  • Incorporate evaluability procedures to assess Reach and other components below

 
Efficacy/effectiveness The impact of an intervention on important outcomes, including potential negative effects, QOL, and economic outcomes 
  • Track unanticipated/adverse events

  • Study moderating factors and subgroup effects

  • Determine MINC

  • Use practical, standardized measures

 
  • Collect data on contextual and individual factors and other behaviors

  • Interview participants and dropouts

  • Assess if participants using any other physical activity supports or resources

  • Report on outcomes by key health disparities

 
  • Collect data on physical activity beyond adherence to intervention protocol

  • Coordinate with other scientists to use common metrics for same outcomes

 
Adoption The absolute number, proportion, and representativeness of settings and intervention agents willing to initiate a program Setting level
  • Collect data on nonparticipating sites or reasons excludeda

  • Build partnerships with survivors, clinicians, and organizational leadership

 
Setting level
  • Track important characteristics (e.g. population served, location, size, etc.) of all sites approached to participate and reasons for ineligibility

 
Setting level
  • Use real-world setting and the comparison group

 
  Staff level
  • Collect information on characteristics of participating and nonparticipating staff

  • Track staff participation

 
Staff level
  • Interview staff at participating and nonparticipating sites

 
Staff level
  • Use real-world practitioners as intervention delivery-agents

 
Implementation The intervention fidelity of agents to the various elements of the protocol of an intervention, including consistency of delivery as intended and the time and cost of the intervention 
  • Assess resources and monetary costs

  • Document adaptations needed

  • Create standardized training and delivery materials

  • Assess consistency of intervention implementation

 
  • Track costs, including training, staffing, assessments, physical resources, and time

  • Document challenges, barriers, and adaptations/solutions and any changes in the study protocol

  • Track how interventions was implemented by different staff members, settings, and across subgroups of individuals

 
  • Allow for tailoring of intervention components to setting

  • Use nontraditional research designs (e.g., MOST, SMART, and CER) as appropriate to address likely challenges

  • Collect information on intervention setting context

  • Use mHealth and eHealth intervention delivery methods with less room for variability

 
Maintenance Individual level: Long-term effects of a program on outcomes ≥ 6 months after interventionSetting level: Extent to which a program or policy becomes institutionalized or part of routine organizational practices and policies Individual level
  • Include, basic minimal assessment of physical activity maintenance and intervention effects ≥6 months after intervention

  • Examine subgroups effects over follow-up period

 
  • Incorporate maintenance assessment period

  • Interview participants about maintenance of behavior

  • Interview setting about maintenance of intervention

  • Assess and report any program changes after formal research evaluation

 
  • Use mHealth and eHealth intervention delivery methods that can be maintained after intervention

  • Incorporate intervention sustainability assessment

 
  Setting level
  • Assess maintenance of intervention within setting ≥6 months after intervention

 
  
DefinitionKey strategiesExamples—both ongoing and future studiesExamples specific to future studies
Reach The absolute number, proportion, and representativeness of individuals who are willing to participate in a given initiative 
  • Collect data on nonparticipants and use mixed methods to understand why people do not participate or dropout

  • Increase recruitment efforts to hard to reach populations

  • Expand eligibility criteria for interventions and observational analyses

 
  • Assess demographics/health status of nonparticipants

  • Involve key community leaders; snowball recruitment

  • Include individuals with other chronic conditions and those ≥65 whenpossible

  • Interview participants, nonparticipants and dropouts

 
  • Incorporate evaluability procedures to assess Reach and other components below

 
Efficacy/effectiveness The impact of an intervention on important outcomes, including potential negative effects, QOL, and economic outcomes 
  • Track unanticipated/adverse events

  • Study moderating factors and subgroup effects

  • Determine MINC

  • Use practical, standardized measures

 
  • Collect data on contextual and individual factors and other behaviors

  • Interview participants and dropouts

  • Assess if participants using any other physical activity supports or resources

  • Report on outcomes by key health disparities

 
  • Collect data on physical activity beyond adherence to intervention protocol

  • Coordinate with other scientists to use common metrics for same outcomes

 
Adoption The absolute number, proportion, and representativeness of settings and intervention agents willing to initiate a program Setting level
  • Collect data on nonparticipating sites or reasons excludeda

  • Build partnerships with survivors, clinicians, and organizational leadership

 
Setting level
  • Track important characteristics (e.g. population served, location, size, etc.) of all sites approached to participate and reasons for ineligibility

 
Setting level
  • Use real-world setting and the comparison group

 
  Staff level
  • Collect information on characteristics of participating and nonparticipating staff

  • Track staff participation

 
Staff level
  • Interview staff at participating and nonparticipating sites

 
Staff level
  • Use real-world practitioners as intervention delivery-agents

 
Implementation The intervention fidelity of agents to the various elements of the protocol of an intervention, including consistency of delivery as intended and the time and cost of the intervention 
  • Assess resources and monetary costs

  • Document adaptations needed

  • Create standardized training and delivery materials

  • Assess consistency of intervention implementation

 
  • Track costs, including training, staffing, assessments, physical resources, and time

  • Document challenges, barriers, and adaptations/solutions and any changes in the study protocol

  • Track how interventions was implemented by different staff members, settings, and across subgroups of individuals

 
  • Allow for tailoring of intervention components to setting

  • Use nontraditional research designs (e.g., MOST, SMART, and CER) as appropriate to address likely challenges

  • Collect information on intervention setting context

  • Use mHealth and eHealth intervention delivery methods with less room for variability

 
Maintenance Individual level: Long-term effects of a program on outcomes ≥ 6 months after interventionSetting level: Extent to which a program or policy becomes institutionalized or part of routine organizational practices and policies Individual level
  • Include, basic minimal assessment of physical activity maintenance and intervention effects ≥6 months after intervention

  • Examine subgroups effects over follow-up period

 
  • Incorporate maintenance assessment period

  • Interview participants about maintenance of behavior

  • Interview setting about maintenance of intervention

  • Assess and report any program changes after formal research evaluation

 
  • Use mHealth and eHealth intervention delivery methods that can be maintained after intervention

  • Incorporate intervention sustainability assessment

 
  Setting level
  • Assess maintenance of intervention within setting ≥6 months after intervention

 
  

aFor multisite interventions (49).

Reach

Although well-defined homogenous samples are often considered hallmarks of rigorous research, they also may limit applicability of findings to real-world heterogeneous populations (75). Existing physical activity and cancer survivorship study samples mainly consist of breast cancer survivors who are middle-aged, White, English-speaking, and high socioeconomic status (33), which is not entirely representative of the survivor population (2). The representativeness of experimental, intervention, and observational study samples should be increased to provide more accurate estimates of effects and cost-effectiveness (76).

Specific strategies and recommendations for improving reach are detailed in Table 2. First, concerted and iterative efforts should be made to recruit harder to reach cancer survivors using methods including bilingual staff, translated and culturally adapted intervention materials, community leaders (77), and snowball sampling techniques (78). Second, study eligibility criteria should be expanded to include survivors over age 65, beyond 5 years after diagnosis and/or those with other chronic conditions (2, 79). Data also need to be collected to compare participants and nonparticipants. Ideally, this would be accomplished through waivers of informed consent to obtain basic demographic and health status data on nonparticipants for comparison. If this is unfeasible, study samples should be compared with the local survivor population (68). Finally, data on factors influencing participation decisions should be collected from participants, nonparticipants and dropouts. These recommendations are all relatively obtainable through protocol amendments for ongoing studies.

Efficacy/effectiveness

Most physical activity and survivorship studies have been designed to maximize efficacy and effectiveness (33). Thus, recommendations in this area are focused on reporting of broader and potential negative, or unanticipated, outcomes and “understanding what works for whom in what situation for which outcomes” (80). Key strategies and examples of how to increase efficacy/effectiveness are provided in Table 2.

Although adverse events are typically tracked in accordance with data safety and monitoring plans, these numbers are not always reported in publications (33). Tracking and reporting of these events is crucial for identifying specific individual, delivery, or setting characteristics influencing adverse events rates. In addition, broader and unanticipated consequences of physical activity interventions (e.g., increased sedentary behavior or caloric consumption) should be measured periodically as they may have important implications beyond intended effects (81, 82). Data should also be collected on use of physical activity resources other than the assigned intervention to distinguish true intervention effects (83).

A key factor in discerning what works for whom under what conditions for which outcomes is understanding the context in which interventions are (and are not) effective (84). Investigators should collect and report data on contextual (e.g., organizational, environmental) and individual (e.g., demographic, motivation) factors that may influence intervention efficacy/effectiveness. These data can also be used to conduct subgroup and moderation analyses to clarify differential intervention or dosage effects (84). Physical activity measurement should also be enhanced to test effects of activity characteristics (e.g., type, volume) on various outcomes. This may consist of (i) supplementation of intervention adherence measures with objective and/or self-report measures; (ii) evaluation of physical activity at more frequent time intervals beyond pre- and postintervention; and (iii) incorporation of a wide range of physical activity dosages in analyses. Ultimately, these techniques could support identification of the minimal intervention necessary for change (MINC; refs. 85, 86). In this case the MINC would represent the lowest intervention intensity, expertise, and resources needed to achieve a clinically significant improvement in activity or a specific outcome for a specific group of survivors under a particular set of conditions, when delivered in a specific way (85, 86). Identification of the MINC for various outcomes would provide a standard for comparison for outcome improvements based on the relative cost of more intensive interventions as well as more personalized activity recomendations for survivors in terms of program/prescription characteristics (86). Finally, use of practical, standardized outcome measures such as validated single-item symptom assessments is recommended to facilitate knowledge integration and monitor congruence at multiple assessment levels (e.g., clinical and population; ref. 87).

Adoption

Specific recommendations for increasing adoption of physical activity interventions for cancer survivors at the setting and staff level are detailed in Table 2. First, researchers conducting single- and multisite interventions should focus on building partnerships within universities, hospitals, cancer centers, and communities to garner support for their programs to increase eventual adoption potential. Future and ongoing interventions should track participating and nonparticipating sites (e.g., populations served, location, and size) and staff (e.g., education, training) characteristics (68). Staff adherence and qualitative data on contextual factors they feel influenced adoption should be collected. Finally, future studies should use a more pragmatic approach to intervention design, including using diverse real-world and low-resource settings (i.e., YMCAs, rehabilitation facilities, community centers, and worksites), clinically relevant comparison groups (76), and practitioners as delivery agents (e.g., American College of Sports Medicine–certified cancer exercise trainers, community health workers; ref. 39).

Implementation

Implementation can be facilitated through the use of technology, replication in diverse settings, collection of data on intervention adaptations or protocol changes, costs, resource requirements (e.g., training, staffing equipment, and time), and value added (see Table 2; ref. 88). In addition, standardized training and intervention materials similar to EnhanceFitness (89) and Fit and Strong (90) physical activity programs for older adults should be created for widespread D&I of programs for cancer survivors. To increase adherence, future studies should consider permitting tailoring of intervention components such as modality (e.g., onsite, telephone, and internet), start date, setting (e.g., group, individual), or physical activity type (e.g., walking, swimming, and aerobics) to meet setting or participant needs (61). Investigators should also consider using more innovative intervention delivery and data collection methods (e.g., internet, mHealth) and nontraditional research designs [e.g., MOST (ref. 58), SMART, and CER (ref. 57)] to increase potential feasibility and sustainability (91). Use of systems science models (92) and/or simulation modeling are also recommended for identifying points of maximum leverage for interventions, effects of physical activity policies, and programs on a variety of outcomes, and unintended consequences (82). Finally, future studies should incorporate D&I models and measures in the study design (93, 94).

Maintenance

Few trials in cancer survivors incorporate any maintenance period or assessment (33, 43). Table 2 provides specific strategies and examples for monitoring and evaluating intervention maintenance at individual and setting levels. Follow-up after intervention is necessary to evaluate behavior change maintenance, program sustainability and maintenance, and potential delayed onset of intervention effects. At a minimum, brief individual and setting level physical activity behavior and/or program maintenance assessments should be conducted at least 6 months after intervention. In addition, individual and setting level data should be collected to examine potential contextual (e.g., organizational support, intervention cost) or individual (e.g., health status, motivation) factors that may differentiate those who maintain from those who do not (68). For settings or individuals that maintain programs, intervention changes or modifications should be examined.

Projects in the planning phase should consider using mHealth or related lower cost, technologies to deliver interventions to enhance their potential maintenance (52). Finally, significant effort should be directed toward enhancing setting level maintenance and sustainability. Promising approaches to enhance setting sustainability are (i) stakeholder involvement from the outset; (ii) modest intervention costs and resource demands; and (iii) alignment with the setting's business core values and relevant reimbursement or return on investment policies.

Despite the benefits of physical activity for cancer survivors, population-specific physical activity recommendations (19) and a process for implementing these guidelines into clinical practice (95), most physical activity research has not been, and is not likely to be, disseminated and implemented into practice. If this research is to move beyond T0 to T2 to have population-level effects, it is imperative researchers consider the broader implications of their work within the larger translational context and collaborate to advance science in this area.

It is strongly recommended that investigators at all T phases (i) adopt a more relevant, transparent, collaborative, and transparent approach; (ii) attempt to address elements of RE-AIM or other D&I frameworks; and (iii) consider these elements in planning, design, and throughout study execution. We highlight key contributions of each T phase of translational research and provide key strategies for incorporating RE-AIM elements across all phases with the goals of improving external validity of ongoing and future studies and increasing the speed and likelihood research will influence practice and policy. In addition, we have provided recommendations for how scientists from different phases can collaborate with one another, survivors, and stakeholders to enhance research value and relevance.

A potential reaction is that the actions called for seem unrealistic or impractical, especially given competing demands, bad reporting, institutional requirements and potentially limited funding mechanisms, and review panels with expertise to facilitate these types of studies. Our response to this likely objection is 4-fold. First, several recommendations do not require additional time, effort or funding mechanisms, but recommend doing things differently from the outset (e.g., thinking about eventual users and the context in which they are working). Second, many recommendations do not require additional resources, but, rather, taking the perspective of stakeholders and transparently reporting information likely available from implementation notes of project staff. Some things such as collecting intervention costs and sustainability data will require additional resources or doing things differently. Third, several recent funding announcements provide support for a more innovative and integrated approach [e.g., “Innovative research methods: Prevention and management of symptoms in chronic illness” (PAR-13-165); “Systems science and health in the behavioral and social science” (PAR-11-314/5) and “Short-term mentored career enhancement awards in the basic behavioral and social sciences: Cross-training at the intersection of animal models and human investigation” (RFA-DA-14-002); “dissemination and implementation research in health” (PAR-13-055); “Physical activity and weight control interventions among cancer survivors: effects on biomarkers of prognosis and survival” (PAR-12-228/9)]. Finally, we assert that the present paradigm of each T stage, and often each research laboratory, doing things in their own silo has been demonstrably ineffective at stimulating translation. If we are serious about making research more broadly applicable and having a population health impact (45, 46), business as usual will not achieve these goals.

We do not expect every study at every T phase to incorporate all the recommendations in the tables and text. Incremental progress is needed and will be helpful. However, given the magnitude of the challenges and important goal of eventually broadly disseminating effective and sustainable physical activity programs for cancer survivors, multiple actions are required. Like other useful guides, such as the chronic care model (96, 97) greater and more rapid progress will be made if future research uses a majority of the strategies above in conjunction with each other, rather than in isolation.

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the National Cancer Institute.

Conception and design: S.M. Phillips, C.M. Alfano, F.M. Perna, R.E. Glasgow

Development of methodology: C.M. Alfano, F.M. Perna, S.M. Phillips

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: S.M. Phillips, C.M. Alfano, F.M. Perna, R.E. Glasgow

Study supervision: S.M. Phillips

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Siegel
R
,
DeSantis
C
,
Virgo
K
,
Stein
K
,
Mariotto
A
,
Smith
T
, et al
Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2012
.
CA Cancer J Clin
2012
;
63
:
220
41
.
2.
de Moor
JS
,
Mariotto
AB
,
Parry
C
,
Alfano
CM
,
Padgett
L
,
Kent
EE
, et al
Cancer survivors in the United States: prevalence across the survivorship trajectory and implications for care
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2013
;
22
:
561
70
.
3.
Institute of Medicine
. 
From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition
. In:
Hewitt
M
,
Greenfield
S
,
Stovall
E
(editors).
Washington, DC
:
National Academies Press
; 
2005
.
4.
Yabroff
KR
,
Lawrence
WF
,
Clauser
S
,
Davis
WW
,
Brown
ML
. 
Burden of illness in cancer survivors: findings from a population-based national sample
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2004
;
96
:
1322
30
.
5.
Hewitt
M
,
Rowland
JH
,
Yancik
R
. 
Cancer survivors in the United States: age, health, and disability
.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
2003
;
58
:
M82
91
.
6.
Meadows
AT
,
Friedman
DL
,
Neglia
JP
,
Mertens
AC
,
Donaldson
SS
,
Stovall
M
, et al
Second neoplasms in survivors of childhood cancer: findings from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study cohort
.
J Clin Oncol
2009
;
27
:
2356
62
.
7.
Inskip
PD
,
Curtis
RE
. 
New malignancies following childhood cancer in the United States, 1973–2002
.
Int J Cancer
2007
;
121
:
2233
40
.
8.
Reulen
RC
,
Winter
DL
,
Frobisher
C
,
Lancashire
ER
,
Stiller
CA
,
Jenney
ME
, et al
Long-term cause-specific mortality among survivors of childhood cancer
.
JAMA
2010
;
304
:
172
9
.
9.
McNeely
ML
,
Campbell
KL
,
Rowe
BH
,
Klassen
TP
,
Mackey
JR
,
Courneya
KS
. 
Effects of exercise on breast cancer patients and survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
CMAJ
2006
;
175
:
34
41
.
10.
Kirshbaum
MN
. 
A review of the benefits of whole body exercise during and after treatment for breast cancer
.
J Clin Nurs
2007
;
16
:
104
21
.
11.
Speck
RM
,
Courneya
KS
,
Masse
LC
,
Duval
S
,
Schmitz
KH
. 
An update of controlled physical activity trials in cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
J Cancer Surviv
2010
;
4
:
87
100
.
12.
Fong
DY
,
Ho
JW
,
Hui
BP
,
Lee
AM
,
Macfarlane
DJ
,
Leung
SS
, et al
Physical activity for cancer survivors: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
.
BMJ
2012
;
344
:
e70
.
13.
Ibrahim
EM
,
Al-Homaidh
A
. 
Physical activity and survival after breast cancer diagnosis: meta-analysis of published studies
.
Med Oncol
2011
;
28
:
753
65
.
14.
Kenfield
SA
,
Stampfer
MJ
,
Giovannucci
E
,
Chan
JM
. 
Physical activity and survival after prostate cancer diagnosis in the health professionals follow-up study
.
J Clin Oncol
2011
;
29
:
726
32
.
15.
Meyerhardt
JA
,
Giovannucci
EL
,
Holmes
MD
,
Chan
AT
,
Chan
JA
,
Colditz
GA
, et al
Physical activity and survival after colorectal cancer diagnosis
.
J Clin Oncol
2006
;
24
:
3527
34
.
16.
Meyerhardt
JA
,
Giovannucci
EL
,
Ogino
S
,
Kirkner
GJ
,
Chan
AT
,
Willett
W
, et al
Physical activity and male colorectal cancer survival
.
Arch Intern Med
2009
;
169
:
2102
8
.
17.
Richman
EL
,
Kenfield
SA
,
Stampfer
MJ
,
Paciorek
A
,
Carroll
PR
,
Chan
JM
. 
Physical activity after diagnosis and risk of prostate cancer progression: data from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor
.
Cancer Res
2011
;
71
:
3889
95
.
18.
Rock
CL
,
Doyle
C
,
Demark-Wahnefried
W
,
Meyerhardt
J
,
Courneya
KS
,
Schwartz
AL
, et al
Nutrition and physical activity guidelines for cancer survivors
.
CA Cancer J Clin
2012
;
62
:
243
74
.
19.
Schmitz
KH
,
Courneya
KS
,
Matthews
CE
,
Demark-Wahnefried
W
,
Galvão
DA
,
Pinto
BM
, et al
American College of Sports Medicine roundtable on exercise guidelines for cancer survivors
.
Med Sci Sports Exerc
2010
;
42
:
1409
26
.
20.
Bellizzi
KM
,
Rowland
JH
,
Jeffery
DD
,
McNeel
T
. 
Health behaviors of cancer survivors: examining opportunities for cancer control intervention
.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
2005
;
23
:
8884
93
.
21.
Courneya
KS
,
Katzmarzyk
PT
,
Bacon
E
. 
Physical activity and obesity in Canadian cancer survivors
.
Cancer
2008
;
112
:
2475
82
.
22.
Blanchard
CM
,
Courneya
KS
,
Stein
K
. 
Cancer survivors' adherence to lifestyle behavior recommendations and associations with health-related quality of life: results from the American Cancer Society's SCS-II
.
J Clin Oncol
2008
;
26
:
2198
204
.
23.
Zhao
G
,
Ford
ES
,
Li
C
,
Balluz
LS
. 
Physical activity in US older adults with diabetes mellitus: prevalence and correlates of meeting physical activity recommendations
.
J Am Geriatr Soc
2011
;
59
:
132
7
.
24.
Zhao
G
,
Ford
E
,
Li
C
,
Mokdad
A
. 
Compliance with physical activity recommendations in US adults with diabetes
.
Diabet Med
2008
;
25
:
221
7
.
25.
Wofford
TS
,
Greenlund
KJ
,
Croft
JB
,
Labarthe
DR
. 
Diet and physical activity of US adults with heart disease following preventive advice
.
Prev Med
2007
;
45
:
295
301
.
26.
Ottenbacher
AJ
,
Yu
M
,
Moser
R
. 
Population estimates of meeting strength training and aerobic guidelines, be gener and cancer survivorship status: findings from the Health Information National Trends Survey
.
In review
.
27.
Devoogdt
N
,
Van Kampen
M
,
Geraerts
I
,
Coremans
T
,
Fieuws
S
,
Lefevre
J
, et al
Physical activity levels after treatment for breast cancer: one-year follow-up
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2010
;
123
:
417
25
.
28.
Charlier
C
,
Van Hoof
E
,
Pauwels
E
,
Lechner
L
,
Spittaels
H
,
De Bourdeaudhuij
I
. 
The contribution of general and cancer-related variables in explaining physical activity in a breast cancer population 3 weeks to 6 months posttreatment
.
Psychooncology
2013
;
22
:
203
11
.
29.
Irwin
ML
,
Crumley
D
,
McTiernan
A
,
Bernstein
L
,
Baumgartner
R
,
Gilliland
FD
, et al
Physical activity levels before and after a diagnosis of breast carcinoma
.
Cancer
2003
;
97
:
1746
57
.
30.
Phillips
SM
,
McAuley
E
. 
Social cognitive influences on physical activity participation in long-term breast cancer survivors
.
Psychooncology
2013
;
22
:
783
91
.
31.
Thorsen
L
,
Courneya
KS
,
Stevinson
C
,
Fosså
SD
. 
A systematic review of physical activity in prostate cancer survivors: outcomes, prevalence, and determinants
.
Support Care Cancer
2008
;
16
:
987
97
.
32.
Stevinson
C
,
Tonkin
K
,
Capstick
V
,
Schepansky
A
,
Ladha
AB
,
Valance
JK
, et al
A population-based study of the determinants of physical activity in ovarian cancer survivors
.
J Phys Act Health
2009
;
6
:
339
46
.
33.
White
SM
,
McAuley
E
,
Estabrooks
PA
,
Courneya
KS
. 
Translating physical activity interventions for breast cancer survivors into practice: an evaluation of randomized controlled trials
.
Ann Behav Med
2009
;
37
:
10
9
.
34.
Rajotte
EJ
,
Yi
JC
,
Baker
KS
,
Gregerson
L
,
Leiserowitz
A
,
Syrjala
KL
. 
Community-based exercise program effectiveness and safety for cancer survivors
.
J Cancer Surviv
2012
;
6
:
219
28
.
35.
Haas
BK
,
Kimmel
G
,
Hermanns
M
,
Deal
B
. 
Community-based FitSTEPS for life exercise program for persons with cancer: 5-year evaluation
.
J Oncol Pract
2012
;
8
:
320
4
.
36.
Knobf
MT
,
Thompson
AS
,
Fennie
K
,
Erdos
D
. 
The effect of a community-based exercise intervention on symptoms and quality of life
.
Cancer Nurs
2013
;
37
:
E43
50
.
37.
Pinto
BM
,
Papandonatos
GD
,
Goldstein
MG
,
Marcus
BH
,
Farrell
N
. 
Home-based physical activity intervention for colorectal cancer survivors
.
Psychooncology
2013
;
22
:
54
64
.
38.
Cheifetz
O
,
Park Dorsay
J
,
Hladysh
G
,
Macdermid
J
,
Serediuk
F
,
Woodhouse
LJ
. 
Can well: meeting the psychosocial and exercise needs of cancer survivors by translating evidence into practice
.
Psychooncology
2014
;
23
:
204
15
.
39.
Glasgow
RE
. 
What does it mean to be pragmatic? Pragmatic methods, measures, and models to facilitate research translation
.
Health Educ Behav
2013
;
40
:
257
65
.
40.
Thorpe
KE
,
Zwarenstein
M
,
Oxman
AD
,
Treweek
S
,
Furberg
CD
,
Altman
DG
, et al
A pragmatic–explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers
.
J Clin Epidemiol
2009
;
62
:
464
75
.
41.
Courneya
KS
,
Friedenreich
CM
. 
Physical activity and cancer control
.
Semin Oncol Nurs
2007
;
23
:
242
52
.
42.
Pollack
LA
,
Hawkins
NA
,
Peaker
BL
,
Buchanan
N
,
Risendal
BC
. 
Dissemination and translation: a frontier for cancer survivorship research
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2011
;
20
:
2093
8
.
43.
Wolin
KY
,
Colditz
GA
,
Proctor
EK
. 
Maximizing benefits for effective cancer survivorship programming: defining a dissemination and implementation plan
.
Oncologist
2011
;
16
:
1189
96
.
44.
Jones
LW
,
Alfano
CM
. 
Exercise-oncology research: past, present, and future
.
Acta Oncol
2013
;
52
:
195
215
.
45.
Khoury
MJ
,
Gwinn
M
,
Ioannidis
JP
. 
The emergence of translational epidemiology: from scientific discovery to population health impact
.
Am J Epidemiol
2010
;
172
:
517
24
.
46.
Khoury
MJ
,
Gwinn
M
,
Yoon
PW
,
Dowling
N
,
Moore
CA
,
Bradley
L
. 
The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into health care and disease prevention?
Genet Med
2007
;
9
:
665
74
.
47.
Glasgow
RE
,
Vinson
C
,
Chambers
D
,
Khoury
MJ
,
Kaplan
RM
,
Hunter
C
. 
National institutes of health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: current and future directions
.
Am J Public Health
2012
;
102
:
1274
81
.
48.
Alfano
CM
,
Smith
T
,
De Moor
JS
, et al
The translational science process for cancer survivorship research: accelerating science into care
.
In review
.
49.
Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM)
.
Accessed 2013 Dec 19. Available from
: www.re-aim.org.
50.
Hall
KL
,
Feng
AX
,
Moser
RP
,
Stokols
D
,
Taylor
BK
. 
Moving the science of team science forward: collaboration and creativity
.
Am J Prev Med
2008
;
35
:
S243
9
.
51.
Lam
TK
,
Spitz
M
,
Schully
SD
,
Khoury
MJ
. 
“Drivers” of translational cancer epidemiology in the 21st century: needs and opportunities
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2013
;
22
:
181
8
.
52.
Riley
WT
,
Glasgow
RE
,
Etheredge
L
,
Abernethy
AP
. 
Rapid, responsive, relevant (R3) research: a call for a rapid learning health research enterprise
.
Clin Transl Med
2013
;
2
:
1
6
.
53.
Institute of Medicine Bridging the evidence gap in obesity prevention: a framework to inform decision making
. In:
Kumanyika
SK
,
Parker
L
,
Sim
LJ
(editors).
Washington, DC
:
National Academies Press
2005
.
54.
Rivera
DE
,
Pew
MD
,
Collins
LM
. 
Using engineering control principles to inform the design of adaptive interventions: a conceptual introduction
.
Drug Alcohol Depend
2007
;
88
:
S31
40
.
55.
Lillie
EO
,
Patay
B
,
Diamant
J
,
Issell
B
,
Topol
EJ
,
Schork
NJ
. 
The n-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine?
Per Med
2011
;
8
:
161
73
.
56.
Zucker
DR
,
Ruthazer
R
,
Schmid
CH
. 
Individual (N-of-1) trials can be combined to give population comparative treatment effect estimates: methodologic considerations
.
J Clin Epidemiol
2010
;
63
:
1312
23
.
57.
Sox
HC
,
Greenfield
S
. 
Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine
.
Ann Intern Med
2009
;
151
:
203
5
.
58.
Collins
LM
,
Murphy
SA
,
Strecher
V
. 
The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) and the sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART): new methods for more potent eHealth interventions
.
Am J Prev Med
2007
;
32
:
S112
8
.
59.
Glasgow
RE
,
Emmons
KM
. 
How can we increase translation of research into practice? Types of evidence needed
.
Annu Rev Public Health
2007
;
28
:
413
33
.
60.
Alfano
CM
,
Ganz
PA
,
Rowland
JH
,
Hahn
EE
. 
Cancer survivorship and cancer rehabilitation: revitalizing the link
.
J Clin Oncol
2012
;
30
:
904
6
.
61.
Irwin
ML
. 
Physical activity interventions for cancer survivors
.
Br J Sports Med
2009
;
43
:
32
8
.
62.
Santa Mina
D
,
Matthew
AG
. 
Exercise in clinical cancer care: a call to action and program development description
.
Curr Oncol
2012
;
19
:
e136
44
.
63.
Glasgow
RE
,
Chambers
D
. 
Developing robust, sustainable, implementation systems using rigorous, rapid, and relevant science
.
Clin Transl Sci
2012
;
5
:
48
55
.
64.
Perel
P
,
Roberts
I
,
Sena
E
,
Wheble
P
,
Briscoe
C
,
Sandercock
P
, et al
Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review
.
BMJ
2007
;
334
:
197
.
65.
Glasgow
RE
,
Phillips
SM
,
Sanchez
MA
. 
Implementation science approaches for integrating eHealth research into practice and policy
.
Int J Med Inform
2013
;
S1386–5056:00157–3
.
66.
Klesges
LM
,
Estabrooks
PA
,
Dzewaltowski
DA
,
Bull
SS
,
Glasgow
RE
. 
Beginning with the application in mind: designing and planning health behavior change interventions to enhance dissemination
.
Ann Behav Med
2005
;
29
:
66
75
.
67.
Gaglio
B
,
Glasgow
RE
. 
Valuation approaches for dissemination and implementation research
. In:
Brownson
RC
,
Colditz
GA
,
Proctor
EK
(editors): 
Dissemination and implementation research in health: translating science to practice
.
New York, NY
:
Oxford University Press
. 
2012
;
327
56
.
68.
Kessler
RS
,
Purcell
EP
,
Glasgow
RE
,
Klesges
LM
,
Benkeser
RM
,
Peek
CJ
. 
What does it mean to “Employ” the RE-AIM model?
Eval Health Prof
2013
;
36
:
44
66
.
69.
Glasgow
RE
,
Vogt
TM
,
Boles
SM
. 
Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework
.
Am J Public Health
1999
;
89
:
1322
7
.
70.
Peek
CJ
,
Glasgow
RE
,
Stange
KC
,
Klesges
LM
,
Purcell
EP
,
Kessler
RS
. 
An emerging bold standard for conducting research in a changing world
.
Ann Fam Med
In press
.
71.
Kessler
R
,
Glasgow
RE
. 
A proposal to speed translation of healthcare research into practice: dramatic change is needed
.
Am J Prev Med
2011
;
40
:
637
44
.
72.
Robinson
TN
,
Sirard
JR
. 
Preventing childhood obesity: a solution-oriented research paradigm
.
Am J Prev Med
2005
;
28
:
194
201
.
73.
Huang
TT
,
Drewnowski
A
,
Kumanyika
SK
,
Glass
TA
. 
A systems-oriented multilevel framework for addressing obesity in the 21st century
.
Prev Chronic Dis
2009
;
6
:
A82
.
74.
Clauser
SB
,
Taplin
SH
,
Foster
MK
,
Fagan
P
,
Kaluzny
AD
. 
Multilevel intervention research: lessons learned and pathways forward
.
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr
2012
;
2012
:
127
33
.
75.
Crosby
RA
,
Salazar
LF
,
DiClemente
RJ
,
Lang
DL
. 
Balancing rigor against the inherent limitations of investigating hard-to-reach populations
.
Health Educ Res
2010
;
25
:
1
5
.
76.
Tunis
SR
,
Stryer
DB
,
Clancy
CM
. 
Practical clinical trials
.
JAMA
2003
;
290
:
1624
32
.
77.
Eakin
EG
,
Bull
SS
,
Riley
K
,
Reeves
MM
,
Gutierrez
S
,
McLaughlin
P
. 
Recruitment and retention of Latinos in a primary care-based physical activity and diet trial: the resources for health study
.
Health Educ Res
2007
;
22
:
361
71
.
78.
Sadler
GR
,
Lee
HC
,
Lim
RSH
,
Fullerton
J
. 
Recruitment of hard-to-reach population subgroups via adaptations of the snowball sampling strategy
.
Nurs Health Sci
2010
;
12
:
369
74
.
79.
Glasgow
RE
,
Magid
DJ
,
Beck
A
,
Ritzwoller
D
,
Estabrooks
PA
. 
Practical clinical trials for translating research to practice: design and measurement recommendations
.
Medl Care
2005
;
43
:
551
7
.
80.
Sayer
A
. 
Method in social science: a realist approach
.
New York: Routledge
; 
1992
.
81.
Stroebel
CK
,
McDaniel
RR
,
Crabtree
BF
,
Miller
WL
,
Nutting
PA
,
Stange
KC
. 
How complexity science can inform a reflective process for improvement in primary care practices
.
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf
2005
;
31
:
438
46
.
82.
Litaker
D
,
Tomolo
A
,
Liberatore
V
,
Stange
KC
,
Aron
D
. 
Using complexity theory to build interventions that improve health care delivery in primary care
.
J Gen Intern Med
2006
;
21
:
S30
4
.
83.
Danaher
BG
,
Seeley
JR
. 
Methodological issues in research on web-based behavioral interventions
.
Ann Behav Med
2009
;
38
:
28
39
.
84.
Stange
KC
,
Glasgow
RE
. 
Considering and reporting important contextual factors in research on the patient-centered medical home
.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
.
Rockville, MD
: 
2013
.
85.
Gierisch
JM
,
DeFrank
JT
,
Bowling
JM
,
Rimer
BK
,
Matuszewski
JM
,
Farrell
D
. 
Finding the minimal intervention needed for sustained mammography adherence
.
Am J Prev Med
2010
;
39
:
334
44
.
86.
Glasgow
RE
,
Fisher
L
,
Strycker
LA
,
Hessler
D
,
Toobert
DJ
,
King
DK
. 
Minimal intervention needed for change: definition, use, and value for improving health and health research
.
Transl Behav Med
2014
;
4
:
26
33
.
87.
Glasgow
RE
,
Riley
WT
. 
Pragmatic measures: what they are and why we need them
.
Am J Prev Med
2013
;
45
:
237
43
.
88.
Ritzwoller
DP
,
Sukhanova
A
,
Gaglio
B
,
Glasgow
RE
. 
Costing behavioral interventions: a practical guide to enhance translation
.
Ann Behav Med
2009
;
37
:
218
27
.
89.
Belza
B
,
Snyder
S
,
Thompson
M
,
LoGerfo
J
. 
From research to practice: EnhanceFitness, an innovative community-based senior exercise program
.
Top Geriatr Rehabil
2010
;
26
:
299
309
.
90.
Hughes
SL
,
Seymour
RB
,
Campbell
RT
,
Desai
P
,
Huber
G
,
Chang
HJ
. 
Fit and Strong: bolstering maintenance of physical activity among older adults with lower-extremity osteoarthritis
.
Am J Health Behav
2010
;
34
:
750
63
.
91.
Pekmezi
DW
,
Demark-Wahnefried
W
. 
Updated evidence in support of diet and exercise interventions in cancer survivors
.
Acta Oncol
2011
;
50
:
167
78
.
92.
Leischow
SJ
,
Best
A
,
Trochim
WM
,
Clark
PI
,
Gallagher
RS
,
Marcus
SE
, et al
Systems thinking to improve the public's health
.
Am J Prev Med
2008
;
35
:
S196
203
.
93.
Tabak
RG
,
Khoong
EC
,
Chambers
DA
,
Brownson
RC
. 
Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research
.
Am J Prev Med
2012
;
43
:
337
50
.
94.
Tabak
RG
,
Khoong
EC
,
Chambers
D
,
Brownson
RC
. 
Models in dissemination and implementation research: useful tools in public health services and systems research
.
Front Public Health Serv Syst Res
2013
;
2
:
8
.
95.
Wolin
KY
,
Schwartz
AL
,
Matthews
CE
,
Courneya
KS
,
Schmitz
KH
. 
Implementing the exercise guidelines for cancer survivors
.
J Supp Oncol
2012
;
10
:
171
7
.
96.
Wagner
EH
,
Austin
BT
,
Davis
C
,
Hindmarsh
M
,
Schaefer
J
,
Bonomi
A
. 
Improving chronic illness care: translating evidence into action
.
Health Aff
2001
;
20
:
64
78
.
97.
Glasgow
RE
,
Davis
CL
,
Funnell
MM
,
Beck
A
. 
Implementing practical interventions to support chronic illness self-management
.
Jt Comm J Qual Saf
2003
;
29
:
563
74
.