Factors influencing physical activity participation among people living with or beyond cancer: a systematic scoping review.

Background

There is a growing body of evidence on the positive effects of physical activity (PA) engagement on cancer patients’ health outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and survival rates [ 1 , 2 ]. Cancer is the second major cause of death worldwide, which affected around 15 million of the global population in 2018 [ 3 ]. In Europe, cancer accounts for about 1.9 million annual deaths, 9% of which occurs in the UK [ 4 , 5 ]. Furthermore, approximately 0.6 million Americans died of cancer in 2019 [ 6 ]. Sufficient PA engagement (i.e. weekly performance of ≥150 min moderate-intensity PA or ≥ 75 min vigorous-intensity PA) has been suggested to reduce cancer recurrence and improve HRQoL and survival rates among cancer patients [ 1 ]. A longitudinal study of 1432 breast cancer patients in the US showed that adequate PA participation was associated with reduced odds of cancer-specific mortality by 73% [ 7 ]. Similarly, a meta-analysis of six studies revealed that sufficient PA performance significantly reduced breast cancer-related deaths and disease recurrence among women with breast cancer [ 8 ]. Furthermore, a Canadian cohort study of 830 prostate cancer patients exhibited that participation in regular adequate post-diagnosis leisure PA significantly decreased cancer-specific and all-cause mortality [ 9 ]. Similar findings were also reported for other different cancer types [ 10 – 12 ].

Despite the well-documented benefits of PA for improving cancer patients’ health outcomes, adherence to the recommended PA guidelines among cancer patients appears to be poor [ 13 ]. For instance, two separate cross-sectional studies by Courneya et al. [ 14 ] and Speed-Andrews et al. [ 15 ] showed that about 70–80% of cancer survivors in Canada were physically inactive. Likewise, two American cross-sectional surveys of survivors of different cancers revealed a low self-reported adequate PA participation (around 30%) [ 16 , 17 ]. A cross-sectional survey by Frikkel et al. [ 18 ] also revealed that only 22% of cancer patients in Germany were physically active. Only 15% of Australian cancer survivors engaged in sufficient PA compared to 45% of the general population [ 19 ].

This low PA level can in part be explained by potential barriers that minimize/hinder cancer patients’ PA engagement. For example, around 75% of participants in the cross-sectional studies by Fernandez et al. [ 20 ] and Romero et al. [ 21 ] reported that cancer therapy-related side effects acted as a barrier to PA participation. Furthermore, kinesiophobia was a common barrier to PA engagement among patients of different cancers [ 22 , 23 ]. Lack of appropriate tailored facilities was also cited as a major barrier among cancer patients in different studies [ 24 , 25 ].

The Health Belief Model (HBM) is a theoretical model that has widely been used in health promotion and disease prevention research to understand and predict individuals’ health behaviors, including PA and exercise [ 26 – 28 ]. The HBM proposes that individuals likely adopt a healthy behavior when they perceive their susceptibility to an illness/risk and its seriousness, and believe that the benefits to action outweigh the perceived barriers [ 29 ]. Cues to action (i.e. stimulus needed to prompt the adoption of health-related behaviors) and self-efficacy (i.e. confidence in one’s ability to adopt the health-related behavior) are two supplementary constructs later added to the HBM to enhance its efficacy [ 30 ]. Sheill et al. [ 31 ] employed the HBM to explore cancer patients’ views towards PA engagement. The study revealed that self-efficacy and perceived barriers, such as cancer-related side effects and inaccessible leisure facilities, were significant predictors of exercise behavior. Sheill et al. [ 31 ] concluded that more prompts are needed to increase cancer patients’ PA participation. These findings highlight the utility of the HBM in exercise-oncology research in providing a thorough understanding of the predictors of PA behaviors to inform the design of effective interventions.

Despite the importance of understanding the influences that affect cancer patients’ PA participation to effectively intervene, limited reviews were conducted in this area and those mainly focused on specific cancer types, particularly breast cancer [ 32 , 33 ]. A comprehensive understanding of different factors that impact cancer patients’ PA engagement across various cancer types is crucial to direct future research and clinical practice. The HBM provided a conceptual framework for the conduct of this scoping review and the examination of the attitudes, preferences and influences that affect PA participation among patients of different cancer types in Western countries, and guiding thinking to inform effective, evidence-based interventions. Specific objectives of this review were to (1) explore cancer patients’ attitudes and perceived benefits and risks of PA participation, (2) investigate PA preferences among cancer patients, and (3) explore barriers and facilitators to cancer patients’ PA engagement.

Methods

This study employed a scoping review methodology to examine the range and scope of the available literature on the investigated topic, producing a rigorous synthesis and disseminating the existing evidence to date. The five-stage scoping framework designed by Arksey and O’Malley [ 34 ] was employed alongside PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews to maximize robustness [ 35 ].

Research question formulation

A review question was articulated with a view to scoping broadly the relevant landscape of literature: What are the perceptions, attitudes and factors influencing physical activity engagement among cancer patients?

Searching for relevant studies

A rigorous systematic search strategy was utilized to identify relevant records. Fifty-one search terms reflecting the review’s key concepts (cancer, physical activity and perceptions) were employed/combined through Boolean operators AND/OR to search four electronic databases (Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO and Medline) from inception to August 2020 (Additional file 1 ). The search was restricted to human studies and English language papers. A manual search of the Web, Google Scholar and relevant articles’ bibliographies was also implemented.

Study selection

Studies were included if they examined attitudes, perceptions, PA preferences and/or barriers vs. facilitators to PA engagement among cancer patients. Only studies from the Western world (Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand) were included in an effort to achieve a balance between reducing heterogeneity while being analytically thorough and pursuing the aims of the review. All cancer types were included, and any age/gender groups were eligible. Both qualitative and quantitative studies were included. Studies examining the impact of PA on cancer patients’ HRQoL, disease recurrence and survival rates were excluded. Papers assessing the cost-effectiveness of PA programs for cancer patients were not eligible. These inclusion/exclusion criteria were adopted to screen articles’ titles and abstracts as well as to entirely assess any potentially pertinent records (Fig. 1 ). Disagreements were addressed via frequent discussions between the authors. Fig. 1 Flow diagram of the eligible studies

Data charting

An Excel-based data extraction tool was developed specifically for this review to facilitate the extraction of pertinent data from eligible records including authorship, country of study, research design, participants, cancer type and key findings.

Collating, summarizing and reporting the results

A dual-stage analysis approach was adopted to synthetize the extracted evidence. First, data were subjected to a numerical synthesis to detect research gaps and enhance effective reporting. Second, three prime themes were generated to represent the extracted data in accordance with the review’s objectives. The HBM was used to develop a conceptual model that illustrated the main findings in terms of factors that influenced cancer patients’ performance and maintenance of PA as a healthy behavior (Fig. 2 ). The implications of the current review were also addressed in order to enhance the utility of the findings for future research, policy-making and clinical practice. Fig. 2 HBM-based conceptual model showing what predicts PA performance as a healthy behavior by cancer patients

Results

Characteristics of the included studies

In total, 9798 articles were retrieved from the automated database search, in addition to 10 papers found through a manual search. Only 98 articles met eligibility criteria and were included for evidence synthesis (Fig. 1 ). Breast cancer was the most commonly investigated cancer site (19%), and 41% of studies examined mixed cancers (Additional file 2 ). One-third of studies focused on post-treatment survivors, and mixed treatment stages were examined in 27%. The US was the country where most studies were conducted (25%), followed by Canada (18%). Qualitative design was employed in 56% of the studies, and 38% used a cross-sectional survey design.

Attitudes and perceived benefits and risks of PA

This theme involved 54 studies addressing cancer patients’ attitudes and perceived benefits and risks of PA participation. These were classified into two subthemes: 1) attitudes towards PA, and 2) perceived benefits and risks of PA.

Attitudes towards PA

Across cancer types, patients demonstrated positive attitudes to PA participation, expressing interest and willingness to engage in PA in order to derive its benefits [ 36 – 41 ]. For example, about half of participants in two mixed cancer cross-sectional studies by Quain et al. [ 42 ] and Blaney et al. [ 43 ] reported being interested in exercise opportunities and becoming physically active. Likewise, approximately 70–80% of mixed cancer participants in five separate quantitative and qualitative studies reported positive attitudes to PA, expressing a desire for PA program opportunities to increase their PA levels [ 44 – 48 ].

Perceived benefits and risks of PA

Cancer patients believed that PA was beneficial for their physical health and mental well-being (Table 1 ). Promoting health and recovery was the most commonly perceived physiological benefit reported by patients across cancer types and treatment stages in different qualitative studies. Cancer patients perceived that exercise had the potential to minimize cancer-related treatment side effects, particularly fatigue. This perceived health benefit was reported by around 90% of participants in three cross-sectional studies [ 43 , 55 , 71 ]. Enhancing cardiovascular fitness, boosting energy, improving muscle strength and managing body weight were also notable physiological benefits that were perceived by cancer patients at mixed treatment stages (Table 1 ). Approximately 90% of participants in cross-sectional studies by Mizrahi et al. [ 71 ] and Rogers et al. [ 55 ] believed that PA engagement built up their muscle strength. Across mixed cancer patient participants in qualitative studies, there was a common perception that exercise could prevent disease recurrence and improve their survival. Improved survival was reported as a perceived benefit by nearly 90% of participants in a mixed cancer cross-sectional study by Eng et al. [ 22 ]. Table 1 Perceived benefits and risks of PA (% patients citing the benefit/risk) Cancer type Country, no. of participants, treatment stage Study design Perceived benefits Perceived risks Reference Physiological benefits (A) Fitness, (B) Strength, (C) Promote health & recovery, (D) Boost energy, (E) Improve survival, (F) Prevent reoccurrence, & (G) Weight loss Psychosocial benefits (H) Relieve stress, (I) Better state of mind, (J) Socialization, (K) Quality sleep, & (L) Self-esteem (A) Fatigue, (B) Pain, & (C) Risk of injury (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (A) (B) (C) Breast Canada, 9, post-ttt QI + + + + + [ 40 ] Canada, 8, during ttt QI + + + + + [ 49 ] Canada, 12, mixed FG + + (25) + (8) + (17) + + (17) + + + (17) + [ 50 ] Canada, 12, post-ttt QI + + + + + + + [ 41 ] NZ, 20 women FG + + [ 51 ] Norway, 27 women, during ttt FG + + + + + + [ 52 ] Sweden, 16, on ttt QI + + + + + + + + [ 53 ] US, 60 women QI + (28) + (15) + (5) + (18) [ 54 ] US, 23 women, during ttt CS + (91) + (91) + (78) + (91) + (87) + (83) + (52) + (78) + (30) + (4) [ 55 ] Colo-rectal Australia,10, post-ttt QI + + + + + + + [ 56 ] Canada, 600, post-ttt CS + (70) + (66) + (61) + (58) + (41) + (52) + (54) + (44) [ 57 ] Canada, 30, mixed QI + (75) + (56) + (63) + (50) + (50) + (24) + (31) + (50) + (65) [ 58 ] Sweden, 17 patients QI + [ 59 ] Endom-etrial UK, 16 women, post-ttt QI + + + + [ 60 ] Kidney Canada, 482, post-ttt CS + (26) + (25) + (22) + (23) + (49) + (3) + (24) [ 61 ] Leuke-mia US, 6, post-ttt QI + + + + + + [ 62 ] Lung Australia, 7, post-ttt FG + + + + + [ 63 ] Denmark, 19, post-ttt QI + + + + + + [ 64 ] US, 43, pre-ttt CS + (13) + (67) + (18) + (13) + (48) + (29) +(14) [ 65 ] Multiple myeloma Australia, 24 patients, post-ttt QI + + + + + + [ 66 ] Ovarian Australia, 12, mixed QI + + [ 67 ] Prostate Australia, 18, post-ttt QI + + + + + + + [ 68 ] Ireland, 20 men QI + + + + + [ 31 ] Various a Australia, 9, on ttt QI/FG + + + + [ 69 ] Australia, 15, mixed QI + + + + + + + + [ 70 ] Australia, 102, post-ttt CS + (88) + (96) + (44) + (63) + (68) + (61) [ 71 ] Canada, 788 patients CS + (76) + (90) [ 22 ] Canada, 66, mixed CS + + + + + + [ 72 ] Canada, 13, post-ttt QI + + + + + + + + [ 73 ] England, 59, mixed CS + (40) + (40) + (10) + (16) + (10) [ 74 , 75 ] Germany, 905 patients CS + (58) + (68) + (61) [ 76 ] Ireland, 41, mixed FG + + + + + + + + + [ 77 ] Italy, 12 females, post-ttt FG + + [ 78 ] Netherlands, 13, post-ttt QI + + + + + + + + [ 79 ] Norway, 7, on ttt QI + + + + + [ 80 ] NZ, 25, mixed stages QI + + + + + [ 81 ] Sweden, 18, during ttt FG + + + + + + + + + + [ 24 ] UK, 6, post-ttt QI + + + + + + + + + [ 82 ] UK, 19, post-ttt QI + + + + [ 37 ] UK, 16, mixed QI + + + + [ 83 ] UK, 26, mixed FG + + + + + + + + [ 84 ] UK, 456 patients CS + (87) + (54) [ 43 ] US, 20, during ttt QI + + + + + + [ 85 ] US, 25, post-ttt FG + + [ 86 ] Abbreviations : CS cross-sectional, FG focus groups, MM mixed-method, NZ New Zealand, PA physical activity, QI qualitative interview, ttt treatment. a The study included various mixed cancer types

Improved state of mind was the most commonly reported perceived psychological benefit of PA participation among patients across cancer types and treatment stages (Table 1 ). Participants in qualitative studies by Hennessy et al. [ 82 ] and Husebø et al. [ 52 ] elaborated that PA enhanced their resilience and helped them focus on the positive aspects of life. Cancer patients also perceived that PA alleviated their stress and enhanced quality sleep. Around 85% of breast cancer patients in a cross-sectional study by Rogers et al. [ 55 ] believed that exercise reduced their psychological distress levels. Across cancer types, group exercising was perceived to reduce their isolation by providing socialization opportunities. Improved self-esteem and confidence in oneself were also among the perceived psychological benefits of PA.

Mixed cancer patients at different treatment stages perceived PA participation to be associated with increased risk of fatigue and exhaustion (Table 1 ). This perceived risk was reported by around 50% of lung cancer patient participants in a cross-sectional survey by Karvinen et al. [ 65 ]. Qualitative studies showed that pain and injury were also common perceived risks recognized by patients across cancer types. Risk of pain was reported by about 30% of lung and breast cancer patient participants in cross-sectional studies by Karvinen et al. [ 65 ] and Rogers et al. [ 55 ].

PA preferences

Thirty-four studies explored the PA preferences of cancer patients and these were organized into three categories: 1) PA types and places for practice, 2) persons to provide information and time to start, and 3) company and time of the day.

PA types and places for practice

Walking was the most preferred type of PA cited by patients across cancer types during the treatment and post-treatment stages (Table 2 ). All breast cancer patient participants in a cross-sectional study by Rogers et al. [ 55 ] reported that walking was their favourite PA type. Similarly, around 75% of mixed cancer participants in cross-sectional studies by Blaney et al. [ 43 ] and Ross et al. [ 96 ] chose walking as their most preferred PA type. Qualitative studies revealed that swimming, cycling and yoga were also popular PA types among mixed cancer patients. Approximately, 60–70% of participants in cross-sectional studies of mixed cancer by Rogers et al. [ 55 ] and Ross et al. [ 96 ] identified swimming and cycling as their favourite PA types. Resistance weight and strength training were also commonly reported PA types. In their qualitative and quantitative studies, Owusu et al. [ 54 ] and Rogers et al. [ 55 ] found that half of breast cancer patient participants preferred resistance weight and strength training during the treatment and post-treatment stages. Other PA type preferences reported by patients across cancer types included gardening, jogging, ball sports, dancing, gymnastics and stretching. Table 2 Preferences for PA types and places for practice (% patients reporting the preference) Cancer type Country, no. of participants, treatment stage Study design PA types Places for PA practice Reference (A) Walking, (B) Cycling, (C) Swimming, (D) Jogging, (E) Dancing, (F) Gardening, (G) Gymnastics, (H) Strength training, (I) Ball sports, (J) Yoga, (K) Resistance weight training, and (L) Stretching (A) Home, (B) Outdoors/park, (C) Fitness center, and (D) Cancer center/hospital (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (A) (B) (C) (D) Brain Canada, 31, on ttt CS + (45) + (6) + (58) + (16) [ 87 ] US, 106, mixed CS + (51) + (44) + (26) + (9) + (6) [ 88 ] Breast Canada, 524, post-ttt CS + (51) + (27) + (36) + (36) + (32) + (51) + (5) [ 89 ] Canada, 12, mixed FG + + + + [ 50 ] US, 60, post-ttt QI + (52) + (37) + (23) + (80) + (52) [ 54 ] US, 23, during ttt CS +(100) + (74) + (61) + (4) + (35) + (52) + (48) + (30) + (22) [ 55 ] US, 160, during ttt CS + (59) + (23) + (6) + (14) + (14) + (22) [ 90 ] Colo-rectal Australia,10, post-ttt QI + + + + + + [ 56 ] Canada, 600, mixed CS + (49) + (4) + (8) + (56) + (40) + (28) + (10) [ 91 ] Netherlands, 15, mixed QI + + + + + [ 92 ] Endometrial UK, 16, post-ttt QI + [ 60 ] Gynecologic Canada, 239 patients MM + (81) [ 44 ] Lung Australia, 7, post-ttt FG + + + + + [ 63 ] US, 43, pre-ttt CS + (49) + (14) +(23) [ 65 ] US, 175, post-ttt CS + (26) + (6) + (12) + (6) + (18) +(10) [ 38 ] Multiple myeloma Australia, 24, post-ttt QI + + + + + + + + [ 66 ] Ovarian Canada, 359, mixed CS + (63) + (3) + (4) + (4) + (49) + (21) + (7) [ 45 ] Prostate Australia, 18, post-ttt QI + + + + + + [ 68 ] Testicular Norway, 9, mixed QI + (67) + (11) [ 93 ] Various a Australia, 92, during ttt CS + (68) + (4) + (6) + (5) + (9) + (53) + (15) [ 94 ] Canada, 66, mixed CS + (60) +(32) [ 72 ] England, 59, mixed CS + (52) + (18) +(73) + (18) + (17) [ 74 , 75 ] Germany, 155, mixed CS + (45) + (45) + (45) + (13) + (20) + (13) [ 95 ] Ireland, 41, mixed FG + (15) + (66) + (3) + (68) [ 77 ] Italy, 392, mixed CS + (21) + (27) + (12) [ 46 ] UK, 26, mixed stages FG + [ 84 ] UK, 456 patients CS + (73) + (31) + (34) + (26) + (31) + (14) + (23) +(16) [ 43 ] US, 20, during ttt QI + (80) [ 85 ] US, 162, mixed CS + (73) + (64) + (58) + (36) + (35) + (31) + (91) + (58) + (64) [ 96 ] Abbreviations : CS cross-sectional, FG focus groups, MM mixed-method, PA physical activity, QI qualitative interview, ttt treatment. a The study included various mixed cancer types

Home and fitness centres were the most preferable places for PA practice among mixed cancer patients at different treatment stages (Table 2 ). About 80–90% of participants in three separate qualitative and quantitative studies reported that they would prefer performing PA at home [ 44 , 85 , 96 ]. Outdoor exercising was also a notable favourable option among patients of different cancer types and treatment stages. Finally, hospital setting was preferred by mixed cancer patients who recognized hospitals as the safest place for PA participation at different treatment stages (Table 2 ).

Persons to provide information and time to start

Studies showed that oncologists were the most preferable source of information among patients across cancer types, followed by physiotherapists and nurses (Table 3 ). Around 60–80% of mixed cancer patient participants in three different quantitative and qualitative studies preferred to receive PA information from oncologists [ 38 , 46 , 85 ]. Other preferable sources of PA information included family doctors and personal trainers. Table 3 Preferences for PA information, timing and people to practice with (% patients reporting the preference) Cancer type Country, no. of participants, treatment stage Study design Persons to provide information Time to start PA program People to perform PA with Time of the day Reference (A) Oncologist, (B) Family doctor, (C) Nurse, (D) Physiotherapist, & (E) Personal trainer (A) At diagnosis, (B) During ttt, (C) Immediately after ttt, & (D) 3–6 months after ttt (A) Alone, (B) Family/friends, & (C) Other cancer patients (A) Morning, (B) Afternoon, & (C) Evening (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A) (B) (C) (D) (A) (B) (C) (A) (B) (C) Brain Canada, 31, during ttt CS + (52) + (26) + (7) + (16) + (29) + (7) [ 87 ] US, 106, mixed CS + (24) + (5) [ 88 ] Breast Canada, 12, post-ttt QI + [ 41 ] Canada, 524, post-ttt CS + (14) + (17) + (14) + (35) + (21) + (14) + (37) + (18) + (50) + (21) + (14) + (21) + (17) + (13) [ 89 ] NZ, 20 patients FG + [ 51 ] US, 23, during ttt CS + (39) + (13) + (30) + (13) + (35) + (26) +(39) + (44) + (30) + (9) [ 55 ] Colo-rectal Australia,10, post-ttt QI + + + + [ 56 ] Canada, 600, mixed CS + (35) + (12) + (25) + (18) + (19) + (9) + (22) + (28) + (24) + (22) + (12) [ 91 ] Netherlands, 15, mixed QI + + + (53) [ 92 ] Endometrial UK, 16 women, post-ttt QI + [ 60 ] Gynecologic Canada, 239 women MM + (63) + (79) [ 44 ] Lung Australia, 7, post-ttt FG + + + [ 63 ] US, 43, pre-ttt CS + (23) + (19) + (2) + (12) + (7) + (16) + (47) + (21) + (7) + (23) + (40) + (7) [ 65 ] US, 175, post-ttt CS + (58) + (8) + (36) + (9) + (8) + (13) + (3) [ 38 ] Ovarian Canada, 359, mixed CS + (18) + (13) + (26) + (26) + (49) + (15) + (17) + (29) + (31) + (16) [ 45 ] Various a Australia, 92, during ttt CS + (18) + (17) + (9) + (41) + (21) + (35) [ 94 ] Ireland, 41, mixed FG + + + + [ 77 ] Italy, 392, mixed CS + (57) + (7) + (30) + (20) + (48) + (31) + (9) + (16) + (8) + (27) [ 46 ] Norway, 7, during ttt QI + [ 80 ] UK, 12, mixed stages QI + + + + [ 36 ] UK, 26, mixed stages FG + + + + + [ 84 ] UK, 456, post-ttt CS + (17) + (14) + (11) + (23) + (7) + (5) + (25) + (34) + (20) +(15) + (15) + (19) + (38) [ 43 ] US, 20, during ttt QI + (80) [ 85 ] Abbreviations : CS cross-sectional, FG focus groups, MM mixed-method, NZ New Zealand, PA physical activity, QI qualitative interview. ttt: treatment. a The study included various mixed cancer types

Overall, cancer patients preferred starting PA programs after finishing their cancer treatment (Table 3 ). For example, about half of participants with different cancers in four quantitative and qualitative studies reported “after treatment” as their most preferred time to start any PA programs [ 44 , 45 , 89 , 91 ]. On the other hand, cross-sectional studies showed that starting PA programs immediately after cancer diagnosis and during treatment was preferred by about 20 and 10% of the patients, respectively [ 45 , 89 , 91 ] (Table 3 ).

Company and time of the day

Exercising alone was a commonly reported option by patients across cancer types and treatment stages (Table 3 ). Around half of mixed cancer participants in four cross-sectional studies admitted that they preferred exercising alone [ 45 , 46 , 87 , 89 ]. On the other hand, about 20% of participants in a cross-sectional survey by Blaney et al. [ 43 ] chose to exercise either with family members or other cancer patients (Table 3 ).

Studies showed that morning was the favourite time of the day for mixed cancer patients to participate in PA, followed by the afternoon and the evening (Table 3 ). In their quantitative and qualitative studies, Rogers et al. [ 55 ] and Agasi-Idenburg et al. [ 92 ] noted that nearly half of participants preferred to engage in PA in the morning.

Barriers and facilitators to PA participation

This theme comprised 82 studies addressing 13 barriers and 9 facilitators to PA engagement among cancer patients (Tables 4 and 5 ). Barriers and facilitators were organized into three main subthemes: 1) physiological factors, 2) psychosocial and cultural factors, and 3) economic and environmental influences. Table 4 Barriers to PA participation among cancer patients (% patients reporting the barrier) Cancer type Country, no. of participants, treatment stage Study design Physiological Psychosocial & cultural Economic & environmental Reference (A) Treatment side effects, & (B) Co-morbidities (A) Low self-efficacy & motivation, (B) Low exercise discipline, (C) Kinesiophobia & (D) Not sporty, (E) Lack of social support, (F) Family responsibility, (G) Preference for other activities, & (H) Time pressures (A) Financial issues, (B) Poor weather, & (C)Unavailable/ inaccessible facilities (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (A) (B) (C) Breast Canada, 9, post-ttt QI + + + + + + + + + + + [ 40 ] Canada,160, during ttt CS + (41) + (4) + (11) + (6) [ 97 ] Canada, 8, during ttt QI + + + + + + + [ 49 ] Canada, 12, mixed QI + + + + + + + [ 77 ] Canada, 12, mixed FG + + + + + + + + + [ 50 ] NZ, 20 women FG + + + + + [ 51 ] Norway, 10, during ttt QI + + [ 98 ] Norway, 27, during ttt FG + + + + [ 52 ] Spain, 14, post-ttt QI + + + + + + [ 99 ] Sweden, 16, during ttt QI + + + + + [ 53 ] UK, 83, during ttt QI + + + + + + (20) + + + + (48) + [ 100 ] US, 23, during ttt CS + (39) + (39) +(52) + + + (26) + (22) + (26) + (39) + (22) + + (22) [ 55 ] US, 30 women, on ttt QI + + + [ 101 ] US, 60 elderly, post-ttt QI + (43) + (22) + (40) [ 54 ] Colo-rectal Canada, 600, post-ttt CS + (14) + (9) + (15) + (16) + (15) + (25) [ 57 ] Canada, 69 survivors RCT + (25) + (1) + (3) + (32) + (1) [ 102 ] Netherland, 15, mixed QI + + + + + [ 92 ] Spain, 30, during ttt QI + + + + + + [ 103 ] Sweden, 17 elderly QI + + + + + + + + + [ 59 ] US, 30, mixed stages QI + + + + [ 104 ] Endometrial UK, 16, post-ttt QI + + + + + + [ 60 ] Gynecologic Canada, 239 patients MM + + + + [ 44 ] Head/neck England, 430, post-ttt CS + + + + + + + + + + + + + [ 23 ] Kidney Canada, 482, post-ttt CS + (20) + (24) + (14) + (19) + (22) + (15) + (8) [ 61 ] Lung Australia, 7, post-ttt FG + + + + + + + + + + + [ 63 ] Denmark, 19, post-ttt QI + + [ 64 ] France, 5, during ttt QI + + + + + + [ 105 ] UK, 28 patients MM + [ 106 ] US, 43, pre-ttt CS + (34) +(16) [ 65 ] Lung & GI US, 34 patients QI + + + + + + + + + + [ 107 ] Lymphoma US, post-ttt survivors FG + + [ 108 ] Multiple myeloma Australia, 24, post-ttt QI + + + [ 66 ] Ovarian Australia, 95, mixed CS + (38) + (26) + (36) + (12) +(35) + (11) + (13) + (21) + (14) + (7) + (12) + (6) [ 109 ] Australia, 95, mixed CS + (38) + + + (33) +(35) + [ 110 ] US, 10 women, post-ttt QI + + + + + + [ 111 ] Prostate Australia, 18, post-ttt QI + + + + + [ 68 ] Australia, 14 men QI + + + + + + + + [ 112 ] England, 16 men, post-ttt QI + + + + + + [ 113 ] Ireland, 20 men QI + + + + + + [ 31 ] Sarcoma UK, 6, during ttt QI + + + [ 114 , 115 ] Various a Australia, 101, mixed CS + + + [ 116 ] Australia, 20, on ttt QI + + + + [ 117 ] Australia, 10, post-ttt CS + (52) + (14) + (9) + (5) + (39) + (34) + (15) + (13) [ 71 ] Australia, 92, during ttt CS + (51) + [ 94 ] Australia, 15, mixed QI + + + + + + [ 70 ] Australia, 9, during ttt QI/FG + + + + [ 69 ] Canada,66, mixed stages CS + + + + + [ 72 ] Canada, 788 patients CS + (41) + (4) + (30) + (13) + (14) + (25) + (19) + (30) + (26) + (10) [ 22 ] Canada, 30, during ttt CS + (74) + (82) + (26) + (60) [ 20 ] Denmark, 33, during ttt QI + + + + + + [ 118 ] Denmark, 451, during ttt CS + (74) + (14) + (14) + (13) + (15) [ 48 ] England, 41, post-ttt CS + (32) + (12) + (12) + (18) + (27) + (15) [ 119 ] England, 59, mixed CS + (48) + (22) + (18) + (18) + (18) +(10) + (45) + (20) [ 74 , 75 ] Germany, 141 patients CS + (77) + (85) + (50) + (27) +(40) + + (5) + (5) + (4) + (7) [ 18 ] Ireland, 41, mixed FG + + + + + + + + [ 77 ] Italy, 12 females, post-ttt FG + + + + + + [ 78 ] NZ, 25, mixed stages QI + + + + + + [ 81 ] Norway, 7, during ttt QI + [ 80 ] Sweden, 18, during ttt FG + + + + + + [ 24 ] UK, 19, post-ttt QI + + + + + [ 37 ] UK, 456, post-ttt CS + (36) + (37) + (27) + (20) + (26) + (26) [ 43 ] UK, 6, post-ttt QI + + + + + + + [ 82 ] UK, 12, mixed stages QI + + + [ 36 ] UK, 1, mixed stages QI + + + + [ 83 ] UK, 26, mixed stages FG + + + + + + + [ 84 ] US, 25, post-ttt FG + + + + + + [ 86 ] US, 162, mixed stages CS + (34) + (36) + (24) + (35) + (24) [ 96 ] US, 662, mixed stages CS + (78) + (67) + (24) + (6) + (29) + (20) + (11) [ 25 ] US, 20, post-ttt QI + + + + + + + [ 39 ] US, 20, during ttt QI + + [ 85 ] US, 452 patients CS + + + + + + + + + [ 120 ] US, 622 patients CS + (78) + (68) + (65) [ 21 ] US, 590 patients CS + + + (8) + (21) [ 42 ] US, 566 older adults CS + [ 121 ] US, 640 patients CS + (27) + (3) + (11) + (27) + (3) [ 47 ] US, 13, mixed stages QI + + + + + [ 122 ] Abbreviations : CS cross-sectional, FG focus groups, MM mixed-method, NZ New Zealand, PA physical activity, QI qualitative interview, ttt treatment, RCT randomized controlled trial. a The study included various mixed cancer types Table 5 Facilitators to PA participation among cancer patients (% patients reporting the facilitator) Cancer type Country, no. of participants, treatment stage Study design Physiological Psychosocial & cultural Economic & environmental Reference (A) Feeling well, & (B) Symptom management strategies (A) Positive previous experience, (B) Perceived benefits, (C) Exercise in routine (D) Social support and guidance, & (E)Companionship (A) Affordable programs, & (B) Accessible/ tailored amenities (A) (B) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (A) (B) Breast Canada, 9 women, post-ttt QI + + + + + + [ 40 ] Canada, 8, during ttt QI + + + + + + [ 49 ] Canada, 12, mixed stages QI + + [ 77 ] New Zealand, 20 women FG + + + [ 51 ] Norway, 27, during ttt FG + + + [ 52 ] Spain, 14 women, post-ttt QI + + + + [ 99 ] Sweden, 16, during ttt QI + + + [ 53 ] Sweden, 29, post-ttt MM + + + [ 123 ] Sweden, 12, post-ttt QI + [ 124 ] US, 15 women, post ttt QI + + + [ 125 ] US, 60 women, post-ttt QI + (50) + (97) + (20) [ 54 ] US, 30 women, during ttt QI + + [ 101 ] Colo-rectal Canada, 600, post-ttt CS + (10) + (13) + (12) [ 57 ] Netherlands, 15, mixed QI + + + + + + + [ 92 ] Sweden, 17 patients QI + + + + + [ 59 ] Endometrial UK, 16 women, post-ttt QI + + + [ 60 ] Gynecologic Canada, 239 survivors MM + (50) + (50) + + + [ 44 ] Kidney Canada, 482, post-ttt CS + (47) + (7), [ 61 ] Lung Australia, 7, post-ttt FG + + + + [ 63 ] Denmark, 19, post-ttt QI + + + + [ 64 ] France, 5 patients QI + + + [ 105 ] US, 43, during ttt CS + (15) + (11) + (15) + (37) [ 65 ] Lung & GI US, 34 patients QI + + + + + [ 107 ] Lymphoma US, N/A, post-ttt FG + + [ 108 ] Prostate Australia, 18 men, post-ttt QI + + [ 68 ] Australia, 14 men QI + + + [ 112 ] England, 16 men, post-ttt QI + + + + + [ 113 ] Ireland, 20 men QI + [ 31 ] Various a Australia, 15, mixed stages QI + + + [ 70 ] Australia, 9, during ttt QI/FG + + + + [ 69 ] Australia, 102, post-ttt CS + + (99) + (97) + (81) + [ 71 ] Australia, 20, during ttt QI + + [ 117 ] Canada, 30, during ttt CS + (63) + (37) + + (32) + + (42) [ 20 ] Denmark, 33, during ttt QI + + + + + [ 118 ] Germany, 905 patients CS + + + [ 76 ] Ireland, 41, mixed stages FG + + + [ 77 ] Italy, 12, post-ttt FG + + + + + + [ 78 ] New Zealand, 25, mixed QI + + + [ 81 ] Sweden, 18, during ttt FG + + + + + [ 24 ] UK, 26, mixed stages FG + + + + + [ 84 ] UK, 456, post-ttt CS + + + + [ 43 ] UK, 19 patients, post-ttt QI + + + [ 37 ] UK, 12, mixed stages QI + + + [ 36 ] UK, 16, mixed stages QI + + [ 83 ] US, 25, post-ttt FG + + + + + [ 86 ] US, 20, post-ttt QI + + + + [ 39 ] US, 13, mixed stages QI + + + [ 122 ] Abbreviations : CS cross-sectional, FG focus groups, MM mixed-method, N/A non-available, PA physical activity, QI qualitative interview, ttt treatment. a The study included various mixed cancer types

Physiological factors

Studies revealed that cancer and its related treatment’s side effects acted as a significant physiological barrier to PA participation among patients across cancer types and treatment stages (Table 4 ). In five cross-sectional studies, about 70–80% of mixed cancer patient participants at different treatment stages reported that cancer therapy-related adverse effects hindered their PA engagement [ 18 , 20 , 21 , 25 , 48 ]. The most common and significant side effects reported by mixed cancer patients were fatigue, gastrointestinal issues and joint pain. Other additional adverse effects were site-specific, such as urinary incontinence (prostate cancer), upper-limb movement issues (breast cancer) and feeding tube limitations (head/neck cancer). Qualitative studies showed that the presence of co-morbidities was a major barrier to PA among mixed cancer patients at different treatment stages (Table 4 ). The most prevalent co-morbidities reported by cancer patients included arthritis, diabetes and heart disease. Cross-sectional studies by Bluethmann et al. [ 121 ] and Frikkel et al. [ 18 ] showed that comorbidity was a significant negative predictor of PA levels among mixed cancer patients.

On the other hand, cancer patients in different quantitative and qualitative studies reported that feeling well (i.e. having no physical symptoms and pain) facilitated their PA participation (Table 5 ). The presence of effective cancer symptom management strategies was a significant facilitator to PA participation among patients across cancer types and treatment stages. For example, mixed cancer patients in qualitative studies by Karlsson et al. [ 59 ] and Swan et al. [ 36 ] explained that the presence of tools/products that help minimize pain during exercising (e.g. TheraBand) would help enhance their PA participation. Furthermore, prostate cancer patients in a qualitative study by Hackshaw-McGeagh et al. [ 113 ] narrated that the availability of well-fitting, comfortable pads would enable them to engage in PA by managing urinary incontinence issues.

Psychosocial and cultural factors

Quantitative and qualitative studies showed that low self-efficacy and motivation and limited exercise discipline were common barriers to PA engagement among cancer patients across treatment stages (Table 4 ). About 70–80% of mixed cancer participants in cross-sectional studies by Fernandez et al. [ 20 ], Romero et al. [ 21 , 25 ] and Frikkel et al. [ 18 ] reported that lack of motivation limited their PA participation. Cancer patients linked their low motivation to feelings of embarrassment and concerns about appearance when exercising in public. Kinesiophobia was a major barrier to PA engagement among cancer patients who were concerned about fall and injury. Cancer patients, moreover, cited “never been active” and “being not sporty” as common barriers to PA participation. In their cross-sectional study, Frikkel et al. [ 18 ] noted that not being active prior to diagnosis was a significant positive predictor of physical inactivity among cancer patients. Lack of social support was a key barrier to PA participation among patients across cancer types in separate quantitative and qualitative studies (Table 4 ). Cancer patients delineated that discouragement by family members and limited support/guidance by clinicians impeded their PA engagement [ 69 , 103 ]. Family responsibility was a significant barrier to PA participation among cancer patients, particularly women who prioritized their family/children over self. Cancer patients preferred spending their free time with families, co-engaging in social activities rather than exercising [ 101 ]. Qualitative and quantitative studies revealed that time pressure was a common barrier to PA engagement. Mixed cancer patients explained that work commitments and cancer-related medical appointments minimized time available for exercising [ 52 , 63 , 100 ].

Qualitative and quantitative studies exhibited that perceived health benefits and positive previous experiences with exercise (exercise-related improvement in cancer symptoms) were strong facilitators to PA participation (Table 5 ). A cross-sectional study by Mizrahi et al. [ 71 ] revealed that 99% of the cancer patient participants found perceived health benefits to be useful for enhancing their PA participation. Furthermore, having exercise in one’s routine facilitated PA engagement among cancer patients. Mixed cancer qualitative and quantitative studies showed that social support was a powerful facilitator to PA participation during and post-treatment stages (Table 5 ). This included having supportive family and friends and helpful/encouraging healthcare professionals that provide sincere guidance on exercise performance. Companionship was a common facilitator reported by patients across cancer types. In their qualitative and quantitative studies, Owusu et al. [ 54 ] and Mizrahi et al. [ 71 ] found that group exercising with significant others and/or other cancer patients who face similar challenges was a major facilitator among 80–95% of the participants.

Economic and environmental factors

Financial issues represented a major economic barrier to PA participation among patients across cancer types (Table 4 ). Cancer patients in qualitative and quantitative studies by Hefferon et al. [ 100 ] and Catt et al. [ 74 ] explained that not affording gym memberships hindered their PA participation. Poor weather was a common barrier to PA engagement among cancer patients. Qualitative and quantitative exercise-oncology research showed that inaccessible facilities represented a significant barrier to PA participation among cancer patients across cancer types and treatment stages. Cancer patients detailed that lack of disabled-friendly spaces (e.g. privacy in changing rooms), limited availability of cancer-specific exercise services and inaccessible parking areas hindered their PA engagement [ 24 , 51 , 72 , 77 , 86 , 100 ].

Qualitative studies showed that availability of affordable PA programs was a common facilitator to PA participation among cancer patients (Table 5 ). The presence of accessible, tailored amenities was cited as a significant facilitator to PA participation in different quantitative and qualitative studies. Mixed cancer patients reported that the availability of facilities with tailored and individualized PA programs would enable them to be physically active [ 83 , 84 , 122 ].

Discussion

This scoping review examined attitudes, perceptions, preferences and barriers vs. facilitators to PA participation among cancer patients to direct future research and inform the development of tailored PA programs. Nearly half of studies investigated mixed cancers, and breast cancer was the most commonly examined cancer type (19%), highlighting a research gap in other cancer sites particularly cancers with high incidence and prevalence. For example, in 2018, globally, lung cancer was the most prevalent cancer type (12.3%) and the most common cause of cancer death (1.8 million deaths) [ 3 ]. This review showed that the US is the lead country in exercise-oncology research. Most studies (96%) employed either qualitative or cross-sectional quantitative research designs which are appropriate for capturing the views of patients.

The HBM aided the analysis of the results of our review and helped to conceptualize and illustrate predictor variables and influencers of PA participation among cancer patients (Fig. 2 ). Perhaps unsurprisingly, most if not all patients perceived the seriousness of the disease and felt susceptible and vulnerable though these perceptions tended to be tempered by cancer patients. Patients appeared likely to adopt PA as a healthy behavior when they believed that the benefits associated with PA outweighed any perceived barriers, particularly when a patient felt self-efficacious and there were positive cues to PA engagement and even more so when physical inactivity was a perceived threat to recovery. According to our model-guided analysis, the likelihood of cancer patients engaging in physical activity is not a simple linear or sequential process - a set of reciprocal relationships appear to exist between self-efficacy, perceived threat, perceived barriers and benefits; and sociodemographic and psychosocial variables individually and collectively exert influences on this set of relationships and on the likelihood of PA engagement by cancer patients.

Our study demonstrated that most cancer patients showed positive attitudes to PA and were motivated to enhance their PA levels, however, they faced numerous barriers that hindered their PA participation. Providing effective cues to action (e.g. inspiring stories of patients who adopted PA behaviors) may help address any negative or neutral attitudes towards PA among cancer patients [ 31 ]. Cancer and its related treatment’s side effects acted as a physiological barrier to PA among patients across cancer types. Fatigue is a common symptom among cancer patients described as a feeling of exhaustion that often limits cancer patients’ ability to participate in PA [ 126 ]. Cancer-related fatigue can be attributed to different factors, including fatigue-triggering cancer-related cytokines and the destruction of healthy cells by cancer treatment. PA has been suggested to help combat fatigue among cancer patients [ 69 ]. A Cochrane review of exercise interventions for managing cancer-related fatigue found evidence that exercise/PA was effective during and after cancer treatment [ 127 ]. Our review showed that perceived health benefits of PA for fatigue management encouraged cancer patients to participate in PA.

Low motivation owing to self-consciousness about appearance limited cancer patients’ PA participation. Cancer patients may have concerns about being judged or getting their appearance criticized by others when exercising [ 86 ]. The availability of group exercise opportunities with other cancer patients appeared to help address the low motivation barrier, fostering cancer patients’ PA participation. Exercising with other cancer patients can help elicit a sense of comfort/belonging, allowing for peer support and enhancing cancer patients’ motivation to participate in PA [ 92 ]. One significant psychosocial barrier revealed in this review was low social support and encouragement by significant others and healthcare professionals who provided limited PA advice and guidance. The main focus on therapeutic treatment and discharge planning in cancer settings with little attention given to PA education and exercise-based rehabilitation is a common issue in healthcare services in Western countries [ 103 ]. Healthcare providers in Europe and the US reported that time pressure in clinics limited their ability to support and guide cancer patients on PA engagement for improving their health outcomes [ 85 , 128 ]. Given the suggested health benefits of PA for improving cancer patients’ health outcomes and survival, exercise education and rehabilitation should be an integral part of cancer services.

Inaccessibility of exercise facilities was a significant environmental barrier to cancer patients’ PA participation. Indeed, inaccessible fitness facilities is a major issue that hinders PA engagement among people with disabilities [ 129 ]. A study by Rimmer et al. [ 130 ] utilized the Accessibility Instrument Measuring Fitness and Recreation Environments tool to assess the accessibility of 227 fitness facilities in 10 American states based on 15 varied criteria, including access routes, parking, professional support and policy. Rimmer et al. [ 130 ] noted that most fitness facilities exhibited low accessibility scores across the 15 investigated criteria, revealing a pressing need for improving fitness facilities’ accessibility to enhance PA participation among people with disabilities. Similar findings were reported in a systematic review of 14 studies by Cadler et al. [ 131 ]. The availability of accessible/tailored amenities appeared to be a significant facilitator to cancer patients’ PA participation. Our review showed varied PA preferences among cancer patients across the type, place, time, source of information and company domains. For example, while some patients considered home or fitness centers as the most favourable place to exercise, others preferred exercising in hospitals. The preference for exercising outside healthcare settings may in part be explained by a desire to restore a sense of normality, whereas the choice of hospitals as a place to exercise can be attributed to the need for feelings of health safety [ 89 ]. These findings highlight the need for individualized PA programs that are designed to best serve each patient’s needs.

Strengths and limitations

This scoping review investigated perceptions, preferences and factors influencing PA participation among patients diagnosed with any cancer types to identify gaps in research. Our review produced a HBM-guided conceptual model that represents the set and pattern of factors that influence cancer patients’ uptake of PA behavior. A strength of our review was that it adopted a rigorous systematic search strategy to address its objectives. The results of the qualitative and quantitative study designs ‘triangulated’ or concurred, overall, thereby adding to the synthesis of the available evidence and adding to the confidence about the believability of the review findings. It is important to note that this review included only English language papers and solely studies from Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand which may limit the review’s findings in terms of the extent to which they might be transferable to low- and middle-income countries, where resources are constrained and the context, culture, organisation, management and delivery of healthcare are different. This review did not involve a quality appraisal of the included studies, in keeping with scoping review methodology guidelines by Arksey and O’Malley [ 34 ], and in order to capture a wide range of types of evidence and study designs and identify gaps in research on the study topic.

Conclusions and recommendations

Most exercise-oncology research focused on mixed cancer patients, and breast cancer was the most commonly investigated cancer type. Cancer patients exhibited positive attitudes towards PA participation and perceived PA to be beneficial for health and wellbeing. Key barriers to PA engagement among cancer patients included treatment-related side effects, low motivation, kinesiophobia, low social support, time pressures and inaccessible fitness facilities, whereas effective symptom management strategies, perceived health benefits, social support and guidance, and availability of tailored amenities were powerful facilitators. PA preferences among cancer patients varied in terms of type, place, time, company and source of information, underscoring the need for personalized PA programs that are developed to best meet patients’ needs.

Based on this review’s findings, we recommend the implementation of mixed-methods research to provide a robust and comprehensive understanding of perceptions, preferences and factors that influence PA participation among cancer patients. Future mixed cancer research should consider analysis by cancer site, and more cancer type-specific studies should be carried out to identify barriers and facilitators to PA that may be pertinent to particular cancer types. There is a need, too, for RCT designs that will determine cancer-specific side effects and inform effective symptom management strategies and appropriate, individualized PA prescriptions and programs. We recommend employing conceptual models such as the HBM framework in future exercise-oncology research to gain as comprehensive as possible understanding about the complex pattern of relationships between variables that predict or influence the adoption of PA as a healthy behavior by cancer patients and to inform the design of necessarily tailored interventions.

Regarding policy and practice, we recommend some actions for consideration by policymakers and commissioners to enable cancer patients to increase their PA participation. These involve the inclusion of exercise science professionals in healthcare professional teams to help develop tailored PA services in canter settings. Furthermore, healthcare providers should be encouraged to provide effective exercise education, including support and guidance on PA engagement, to cancer patients. We also propose the implementation of exercise-based rehabilitation as an integral part of cancer treatment settings. Innovative medical healthcare products and technologies that are mainly designed to help manage cancer-related side effects and enhance cancer patients’ PA participation are recommended. Finally, community-based fitness facilities are encouraged to enhance their accessibility to serve as a potential health promotion place for people with disabilities, including cancer [ 131 ].

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. The concepts and search terms run in the automated databases. Additional file 2. Characteristics of the 98 included studies.

Abbreviations

Health belief model

Health-related quality of life

Physical activity

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Authors’ contributions

SE, CT and MD conceptualized the study and developed search strategy. SE conducted the database search. SE and CT worked on article screening and data extraction. SE curated and analyzed the data. MD supervised the study processes. SE wrote the original draft, and MD assisted with writing and reviewing/editing the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Funding

MD was part funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) UK - Newton Fund and the MRC UKRI GCRF during the analysis and writing of this paper.

Availability of data and materials

All data analyzed in this review are presented in the published article and its additional files 1 and 2 .

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

1. Angeline G Passildas J Gadea E Abrial C Molnar I Trésorier R Treatment-induced cardiotoxicity in breast cancer: a review of the interest of practicing a physical activity Oncology. 2019 96 5 1 12 10.1159/000499383 30943496

2. Kapila AK Hamdi M Patel A Clinicians should actively promote exercise in survivors of breast cancer Clin Breast Cancer 2018 18 5 e747 e749 10.1016/j.clbc.2018.06.008 30417830

3. WHO. Cancer. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer . (2018) Accessed 20 October 2020.

4. WHO. Data and statistics. https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/noncommunicable-diseases/cancer/data-and-statistics#:~:text=With more than 3.7 million,death and morbidity in Europe. (2020) Accessed 21 October 2020.

5. Cancer Research UK. Cancer statistics for the UK. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics-for-the-uk#heading-One . (2019) Accessed 20 October 2020.

6. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures. https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/cancer-facts-figures-2019.html#:~:text=Estimated numbers of new cancer,deaths in the United States. (2019) Accessed 22 October 2020.

7. Bradshaw P Ibrahim J Khankari N Cleveland R Abrahamson P Stevens J Post-diagnosis physical activity and survival after breast cancer diagnosis: the Long Island breast Cancer study Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014 145 3 735 742 10.1007/s10549-014-2966-y 24789444 PMC4358816

8. Ibrahim EM Al-Homaidh A Physical activity and survival after breast cancer diagnosis: meta-analysis of published studies Med Oncol 2011 28 3 753 765 10.1007/s12032-010-9536-x 20411366

9. Friedenreich CM Wang Q Neilson HK Kopciuk KA McGregor SE Courneya KS Physical activity and survival after prostate cancer Eur Urol 2016 70 4 576 585 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.032 26774959

10. Hanyuda A Kim SA Martinez-Fernandez A Qian ZR Yamauchi M Nishihara R Morikawa T Liao X Inamura K Mima K Cao Y Zhang X Wu K Chan AT Giovannucci EL Meyerhardt JA Fuchs CS Shivdasani RA Ogino S Survival benefit of exercise differs by tumor IRS1 expression status in colorectal cancer Ann Surg Oncol 2016 23 3 908 917 10.1245/s10434-015-4967-4 26577117 PMC4747829

11. Nechuta S Chen WY Cai H Poole EM Kwan ML Flatt SW Patterson RE Pierce JP Caan BJ Ou Shu X A pooled analysis of post-diagnosis lifestyle factors in association with late estrogen-receptor–positive breast cancer prognosis Int J Cancer 2016 138 9 2088 2097 10.1002/ijc.29940 26606746 PMC4764465

12. Wiskemann J Kleindienst N Kuehl R Dreger P Schwerdtfeger R Bohus M Effects of physical exercise on survival after allogeneic stem cell transplantation Int J Cancer 2015 137 11 2749 2756 10.1002/ijc.29633 26061092

13. Troeschel A, Leach C, Shuval K, Stein K, Patel A. Physical activity in cancer survivors during “re-entry” following cancer treatment. Prev Chronic Dis. 2018;15. 10.5888/pcd15.170277. 10.5888/pcd15.170277 PMC5985854 29806579

14. Courneya KS Katzmarzyk PT Bacon E Physical activity and obesity in Canadian cancer survivors Cancer. 2008 112 11 2475 2482 10.1002/cncr.23455 18428195

15. Speed-Andrews A Rhodes R Blanchard C Culos-Reed S Friedenreich C Bélanger L Medical, demographic and social cognitive correlates of physical activity in a population-based sample of colorectal cancer survivors Eur J Cancer Care. 2011 21 187 196 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2011.01290.x 21902736

16. Blanchard C Courneya K 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 13 2198 2204 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.6217 18445845

17. Krok-Schoen JL, Pisegna J, Arthur E, Ridgway E, Stephens C, Rosko AE. Prevalence of lifestyle behaviors and associations with health-related quality of life among older female cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer. 2020. 10.1007/s00520-020-05812-3. 10.1007/s00520-020-05812-3 33040283

18. Frikkel J Götte M Beckmann M Kasper S Hense J Teufel M Schuler M Tewes M Fatigue, barriers to physical activity and predictors for motivation to exercise in advanced Cancer patients BMC Palliat Care. 2020 19 1 43 10.1186/s12904-020-00542-z 32234027 PMC7110817

19. Boyle T Vallance JK Ransom EK Lynch BM How sedentary and physically active are breast cancer survivors, and which population subgroups have higher or lower levels of these behaviors? Support Care Cancer 2016 24 5 2181 2190 10.1007/s00520-015-3011-3 26563180

20. Fernandez S Franklin J Amlani N DeMilleVille C Lawson D Smith-Turchyn J Physical activity and cancer: a cross-sectional study on the barriers and facilitators to exercise during cancer treatment Can Oncol Nurs J 2015 25 2 37 42 10.5737/236880762513742 26642493

21. Romero S Li Q Mao J Factors and barriers associated with changes in physical activity after cancer diagnosis J Clin Oncol 2017 35 5_suppl 162 10.1200/JCO.2017.35.5_suppl.162

22. Eng L Pringle D Su J Shen X Mahler M Niu C Charow R Tiessen K Lam C Halytskyy O Naik H Hon H Irwin M Pat V Gonos C Chan C Villeneuve J Harland L Shani RM Brown MC Selby P Howell D Xu W Liu G Alibhai SMH Jones JM Patterns, perceptions, and perceived barriers to physical activity in adult cancer survivors Support Care Cancer 2018 26 11 3755 3763 10.1007/s00520-018-4239-5 29808379

23. Rogers SN Travers A Lowe D Levy AR Midgely AW Importance of activity and recreation for the quality of life of patients treated for cancer of the head and neck Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019 57 2 125 134 10.1016/j.bjoms.2018.10.001 30658870

24. Henriksson A Arving C Johansson B Igelström H Nordin K Perceived barriers to and facilitators of being physically active during adjuvant cancer treatment Patient Educ Couns 2016 99 7 1220 1226 10.1016/j.pec.2016.01.019 26860549

25. Romero S Brown J Bauml J Hay J Li Q Cohen R Barriers to physical activity: a study of academic and community cancer survivors with pain J Cancer Surviv 2018 12 6 744 752 10.1007/s11764-018-0711-y 30182150 PMC6461363

26. Wu S Feng X Sun X Development and evaluation of the health belief model scale for exercise Int J Nurs Sci 2020 7 Suppl 1 S23 S30 10.1016/j.ijnss.2020.07.006 32995376 PMC7501492

27. Shafieian M Kazemi A A randomized trial to promote physical activity during pregnancy based on health belief model J Educ Health Promot 2017 6 1 40 10.4103/jehp.jehp_19_15 28584839 PMC5441198

28. Villar OAE-D Montañez-Alvarado P Gutiérrez-Vega M Carrillo-Saucedo IC Gurrola-Peña GM Ruvalcaba-Romero NA García-Sánchez MD Ochoa-Alcaraz SG Factor structure and internal reliability of an exercise health belief model scale in a Mexican population BMC Public Health 2017 17 1 229 10.1186/s12889-017-4150-x 28249597 PMC5333383

29. Rosenstock IM Historical origins of the health belief model Health Educ Monogr 1974 2 4 328 335 10.1177/109019817400200403 299611

30. Rosenstock IM Strecher VJ Becker MH Social learning theory and the health belief model Health Educ Q 1988 15 2 175 183 10.1177/109019818801500203 3378902

31. Sheill G Guinan E Neill LO Hevey D Hussey J The views of patients with metastatic prostate cancer towards physical activity: a qualitative exploration Support Care Cancer 2018 26 6 1747 1754 10.1007/s00520-017-4008-x 29243168

32. Livsey L Lewis K Breast cancer survivors’ perceptions of participating in a supervised exercise intervention: an exploratory review of the literature Women Health 2018 58 9 1017 1036 10.1080/03630242.2017.1372844 28922074

33. Browall M Mijwel S Rundqvist H Wengström Y Physical activity during and after adjuvant treatment for breast cancer: an integrative review of women’s experiences Integr Cancer Ther 2018 17 1 16 30 10.1177/1534735416683807 28008778 PMC5950941

34. Arksey H O’Malley L Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework Int J Soc Res Methodol Routledge 2005 8 1 19 32 10.1080/1364557032000119616

35. Tricco AC Lillie E Zarin W O’Brien KK Colquhoun H Levac D PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation Ann Intern Med 2018 169 7 467 473 10.7326/M18-0850 30178033

36. Swan F, Chen H, Forbes CC, Johnson MJ, Lind M. Cancer Behavioural nutrition and exercise feasibility trial (CanBenefit); phase I qualitative interview findings. J Geriatr Oncol. 2020. 10.1016/j.jgo.2020.09.026. 10.1016/j.jgo.2020.09.026 33059998

37. Smith L Croker H Fisher A Williams K Wardle J Beeken RJ Cancer survivors’ attitudes towards and knowledge of physical activity, sources of information, and barriers and facilitators of engagement: a qualitative study Eur J Cancer Care. 2017 26 4 e12641 10.1111/ecc.12641 28135016

38. Philip E, Coups E, Feinstein M, Park B, Wilson D, Ostroff J. Physical activity preferences of early-stage lung cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer. 2013;22(2): 495–502. 10.1007/s00520-013-2002-5 PMC3947315 24091722

39. Black KZ Johnson L-S Samuel-Hodge CD Gupta L Sundaresan A Nicholson WK Perceived barriers and preferred components for physical activity interventions in African-American survivors of breast or endometrial cancer with type 2 diabetes: the S.U.C.C.E.S.S. framework Support Care Cancer 2018 26 1 231 240 10.1007/s00520-017-3839-9 28766098

40. Brunet J Taran S Burke S Sabiston C A qualitative exploration of barriers and motivators to physical activity participation in women treated for breast cancer Disabil Rehabil 2013 35 24 2038 2045 10.3109/09638288.2013.802378 23772995

41. Milosevic E Brunet J Campbell K Exploring tensions within young breast cancer survivors’ physical activity, nutrition and weight management beliefs and practices Disabil Rehabil 2020 42 5 1 7 10.1080/09638288.2018.1506512 30616419

42. Quain K O’Donnell E Perez G Rabin J Park E Peppercorn J Room to move: physical activity and exercise barriers in the cancer clinic J Clin Oncol 2017 35 15_suppl e21601 10.1200/JCO.2017.35.15_suppl.e21601

43. Blaney JM Lowe-Strong A Rankin-Watt J Campbell A Gracey JH Cancer survivors’ exercise barriers, facilitators and preferences in the context of fatigue, quality of life and physical activity participation: a questionnaire–survey Psychooncology. 2013 22 1 186 194 10.1002/pon.2072 23296635

44. Tyrrell A Keats M Blanchard C The physical activity preferences of gynecologic cancer survivors Oncol Nurs Forum 2014 41 5 461 469 10.1188/14.ONF.461-469 25158652

45. Stevinson C Capstick V Schepansky A Tonkin K Vallance J Ladha A Physical activity preferences of ovarian cancer survivors Psychooncology. 2009 18 4 422 428 10.1002/pon.1396 19243089

46. Avancini A Pala V Trestini I Tregnago D Mariani L Sieri S Krogh V Boresta M Milella M Pilotto S Lanza M Exercise levels and preferences in cancer patients: a cross-sectional study Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020 17 15 5351 10.3390/ijerph17155351 PMC7432474 32722265

47. Knowlton S O’Donnell E Horick N Perez G Park E Rabin J Moving forward on all fronts: impact, patterns, and barriers to exercise in cancer survivors and patients living with advanced disease Support Care Cancer 2020 28 10 4979 4988 10.1007/s00520-020-05344-w 32034513

48. Midtgaard J Baadsgaard MT Møller T Rasmussen B Quist M Andersen C Rørth M Adamsen L Self-reported physical activity behaviour; exercise motivation and information among Danish adult cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy Eur J Oncol Nurs 2009 13 2 116 121 10.1016/j.ejon.2009.01.006 19230768

49. Ingram C Wessel J Courneya KS Women’s perceptions of home-based exercise performed during adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer Eur J Oncol Nurs 2010 14 3 238 243 10.1016/j.ejon.2010.01.027 20236860

50. Rogers L Matevey C Hopkins-Price P Shah P Dunnington G Courneya K Exploring social cognitive theory constructs for promoting exercise among breast cancer patients Cancer Nurs 2004 27 6 462 473 10.1097/00002820-200411000-00006 15632787

51. Jones LM Reinhoudt LL Hilverda F Rutjes C Hayes SC Using the integrative model of behavioral prediction to understand female breast cancer survivors’ barriers and facilitators for adherence to a community-based group-exercise program Semin Oncol Nurs 2020 36 5 151071 10.1016/j.soncn.2020.151071 33008683

52. Husebø AML Karlsen B Allan H Søreide JA Bru E Factors perceived to influence exercise adherence in women with breast cancer participating in an exercise programme during adjuvant chemotherapy: a focus group study J Clin Nurs 2015 24 3-4 500 510 10.1111/jocn.12633 24890796

53. Backman M Brovall M Sundberg CJ Wengström Y Experiencing health - physical activity during adjuvant chemotherapy treatment for women with breast cancer Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2015 21 160 7 10.1016/j.ejon.2015.09.007 26463702

54. Owusu C Albert E Nock N Hergenroeder P Austin K Bennet E Perspective of older African-American and non-Hispanic white breast cancer survivors from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds toward physical activity: a qualitative study J Geriatr Oncol 2018 9 3 235 242 10.1016/j.jgo.2017.12.003 29306608 PMC5936661

55. Rogers LQ Courneya KS Shan P Dunnington G Hopkins-price P Exercise stage of change, barriers, expectations, values and preferences among breast cancer patients during treatment: a pilot study Eur J Cancer Care. 2007 16 1 55 66 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2006.00705.x 17227354

56. Spence RR Heesch KC Brown WJ Colorectal cancer survivors’ exercise experiences and preferences: qualitative findings from an exercise rehabilitation programme immediately after chemotherapy Eur J Cancer Care. 2011 20 2 257 266 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2010.01214.x 20649808

57. Speed-Andrews A, McGowan E, Rhodes R, Blanchard C, Culos-Reed S, Friedenreich C, et al. Identification and evaluation of the salient physical activity beliefs of colorectal cancer survivors. Cancer Nurs. 2013;37(1):14–22. 10.1097/NCC.0b013e3182813972 23448955

58. Morielli AR Usmani N Boulé NG Severin D Tankel K Nijjar T Joseph K Courneya KS Exercise motivation in rectal cancer patients during and after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy Support Care Cancer 2016 24 2919 2926 10.1007/s00520-016-3110-9 26847350

59. Karlsson E Dahl O Rydwik E Nygren-Bonnier M Bergenmar M Older patients’ attitudes towards, and perceptions of, preoperative physical activity and exercise prior to colorectal cancer surgery—a gap between awareness and action Support Care Cancer 2020 28 8 3945 3953 10.1007/s00520-019-05237-7 31863214 PMC7316666

60. Koutoukidis D, Beeken R, Lopes S, Knobf M, Lanceley A. Attitudes, challenges and needs about diet and physical activity in endometrial cancer survivors: a qualitative study. Eur J Cancer Care. 2016;26. 10.1111/ecc.12531 27324208

61. Trinh L Plotnikoff R Rhodes R North S Courneya K Correlates of physical activity in population-based sample of kidney cancer survivors: an application of the theory of planned behavior Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012 9 1 96 10.1186/1479-5868-9-96 22866956 PMC3489870

62. Bryant A Walton AML Pergolotti M Phillips B Bailey C Mayer D Perceived benefits and barriers to exercise for recently treated adults with acute leukemia Oncol Nurs Forum 2017 44 4 413 420 10.1188/17.ONF.413-420 28632248 PMC5835922

63. Granger C Parry S Edbrooke L Abo S Leggett N Dwyer M Improving the delivery of physical activity services in lung cancer: a qualitative representation of the patient’s perspective Eur J Cancer Care 2018 28 1 e12946 10.1111/ecc.12946 30284343

64. Missel M Pedersen JH Hendriksen C Tewes M Adamsen L Exercise intervention for patients diagnosed with operable non-small cell lung cancer: a qualitative longitudinal feasibility study Support Care Cancer 2015 23 8 2311 2318 10.1007/s00520-014-2579-3 25577502

65. Karvinen K Vallance J Walker P Newly diagnosed lung cancer patients’ preferences for and beliefs about physical activity prior to chemotherapy Psychol Health Med 2016 21 5 1 8 10.1080/13548506.2016.1139739 26813963

66. Craike MJ Hose K Courneya KS Harrison SJ Livingston PM Perceived benefits and barriers to exercise for recently treated patients with multiple myeloma: a qualitative study BMC Cancer 2013 13 1 319 10.1186/1471-2407-13-319 23815855 PMC3702408

67. Burnett PC Gucciardi DF Briffa NK Perceptions of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer about exercise and urogynaecological and psychosexual outcomes—a qualitative study Physiotherapy. 2015 101 e171 e172 10.1016/j.physio.2015.03.326

68. Craike MJ Livingston PM Botti M An exploratory study of the factors that influence physical activity for prostate cancer survivors Support Care Cancer 2011 19 7 1019 1028 10.1007/s00520-010-0929-3 20623146

69. Dennett AM Harding KE Reed MS The challenge of timing: a qualitative study on clinician and patient perspectives about implementing exercise-based rehabilitation in an acute cancer treatment setting Support Care Cancer 2020 28 12 6035 6043 10.1007/s00520-020-05436-7 32291598

70. Ferri A Gane E Smith M Pinkham E Gomersall S Johnston V Experiences of people with cancer who have participated in a hospital-based exercise program: a qualitative study Support Care Cancer 2020 29 3 1575 1583 10.1007/s00520-020-05647-y 32740895

71. Mizrahi D Wakefield CE Simar D Ha L McBride J Field P Cohn RJ Fardell JE Barriers and enablers to physical activity and aerobic fitness deficits among childhood cancer survivors Pediatr Blood Cancer 2020 67 7 e28339 10.1002/pbc.28339 32386117

72. Peeters C Stewart A Segal R Wouterloot E Scott CG Aubry T Evaluation of a cancer exercise program: patient and physician beliefs Psychooncology. 2009 18 8 898 902 10.1002/pon.1406 19117271

73. Liska TM Kolen AM The role of physical activity in cancer survivors’ quality of life Health Qual Life Outcomes 2020 18 1 197 10.1186/s12955-020-01448-3 32571351 PMC7310034

74. Catt S, Harder H, Sheward J, Sheward E, Fallowfield L. Exercise levels and experiences of those attending CUFITTER-a tailored exercise programme for people in cancer recovery. 2017. https://shore-c.sussex.ac.uk/posters/CUFITTER%20BPOS%20poster%202017%20V3.pdf .

75. Catt S Sheward J Sheward E Harder H Cancer survivors’ experiences of a community-based cancer-specific exercise programme: results of an exploratory survey Support Care Cancer 2018 26 9 3209 3216 10.1007/s00520-018-4179-0 29623420

76. Höh J-C Schmidt T Hübner J Physical activity among cancer survivors—what is their perception and experience? Support Care Cancer 2018 26 1471 1478 10.1007/s00520-017-3977-0 29168034

77. Cantwell M Walsh D Furlong B Loughney L Mccaffrey N Moyna N Physical activity across the cancer journey: experiences and recommendations from people living with and beyond cancer Phys Ther 2020 100 5_suppl 162 10.1200/JCO.2017.35.5_suppl.162 31588506

78. Avancini A Skroce K Tregnago D Frada P Trestini I Cercato MC Bonaiuto C Tarperi C Schena F Milella M Pilotto S Lanza M “Running with cancer”: a qualitative study to evaluate barriers and motivations in running for female oncological patients PLoS One 2020 15 4 e0227846 10.1371/journal.pone.0227846 32240181 PMC7117710

79. Groeneveld I Boer A Frings-Dresen M Physical exercise and return to work: Cancer survivors’ experiences J Cancer Surviv 2013 7 2 237 246 10.1007/s11764-012-0264-4 23443319

80. Mikkelsen HE Vassbakk-Brovold K Antonsen A Berntsen S Kersten C Fegran L Cancer patients’ long-term experiences of participating in a comprehensive lifestyle intervention study while receiving chemotherapy Cancer Nurs 2020 43 1 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000650 30312192

81. Cummins C Kayes NM Reeve J Smith G MacLeod R McPherson KM Navigating physical activity engagement following a diagnosis of cancer: a qualitative exploration Eur J Cancer Care. 2017 26 4 e12608 10.1111/ecc.12608 27925326

82. Hennessy EM Stevinson C Fox KR Preliminary study of the lived experience of exercise for cancer survivors Eur J Oncol Nurs 2005 9 2 155 166 10.1016/j.ejon.2004.08.003 15944108

83. Below N Fisher A Epstone S Reynolds J Pugh G Young adult cancer survivors’ experience of taking part in a 12-week exercise referral programme: a qualitative study of the Trekstock RENEW initiative Support Care Cancer 2020 29 5 2613 2620 10.1007/s00520-020-05746-w 32964260 PMC7981325

84. Blaney J Lowe-Strong A Rankin J Campbell A Allen J Gracey J The cancer rehabilitation journey: barriers to and facilitators of exercise among patients with cancer-related fatigue Phys Ther 2010 90 8 1135 1147 10.2522/ptj.20090278 20558566

85. Smaradottir A Smith A Borgert A Oettel K Are we on the same page? Patient and provider perceptions about exercise in cancer care: a focus group study J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 2017 15 5 588 594 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0061 28476738

86. Wu Y Yi J McClellan J Kim J Tian T Parsons B Barriers and facilitators of healthy diet and exercise among adolescent and young adult cancer survivors: implications for behavioral interventions J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol 2015 4 4 184 191 10.1089/jayao.2015.0028 26697268 PMC4684662

87. Lowe S Danielson B Beaumont C Watanabe S Courneya K Physical activity interests and preferences of cancer patients with brain metastases: a cross-sectional survey BMC Palliat Care 2016 15 1 7 10.1186/s12904-016-0083-x 26786579 PMC4719740

88. Jones LW Guill B Keir ST Carter K Friedman HS Bigner DD Reardon DA Exercise interest and preferences among patients diagnosed with primary brain cancer Support Care Cancer 2007 15 1 47 55 10.1007/s00520-006-0096-8 16819629

89. Vallance J Lavallee C Culos-Reed N Trudeau M Rural and small town breast cancer survivors’ preferences for physical activity Int J Behav Med 2013 20 4 522 528 10.1007/s12529-012-9264-z 22992864

90. Bernardo L Abt K Ren D Bender C Self-reported exercise during breast Cancer treatment Cancer Nurs 2010 33 4 304 309 10.1097/NCC.0b013e3181cdce2c 20467312

91. McGowan E Speed-Andrews A Blanchard C Rhodes R Friedenreich C Culos-Reed S Physical activity preferences among a population-based sample of colorectal cancer survivors Oncol Nurs Forum 2013 40 1 44 52 10.1188/13.ONF.44-52 23269769

92. Agasi-Idenburg C Koning-van Zuilen M Westerman M Punt C Aaronson N Stuiver M “I am busy surviving” - views about physical exercise in older adults scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery J Geriatr Oncol. 2019 11 3 444 50 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.05.001 31122871

93. Thorsen L Kirkegaard C Loge J Kiserud C Johansen M Gjerset G Feasibility of a physical activity intervention during and shortly after chemotherapy for testicular cancer BMC Res Notes 2017 10 1 214 10.1186/s13104-017-2531-y 28619116 PMC5472911

94. Murnane A Geary B Milne D The exercise programming preferences and activity levels of cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy treatment Support Care Cancer 2012 20 5 957 962 10.1007/s00520-011-1167-z 21523349

95. Buentzel J, Kusterer I, Rudolph Y, Kubin T, Micke O, Hübner J. Cancer patients’ knowledge and acceptance of physical activities for rehabilitation. In Vivo. 2017;31:1187–92. doi: 10.21873/invivo.11188, 10.21873/invivo.11188. 10.21873/invivo.11188 PMC5756650 29102944

96. Ross WL Le A Zheng DJ Mitchell H-R Rotatori J Li F Physical activity barriers, preferences, and beliefs in childhood cancer patients Support Care Cancer 2018 26 7 2177 2184 10.1007/s00520-017-4041-9 29383508

97. Courneya K Mckenzie D Reid R Mackey J Gelmon K Friedenreich C Barriers to supervised exercise training in a randomized controlled trial of breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy Ann Behav Med 2008 35 1 116 122 10.1007/s12160-007-9009-4 18347912

98. Vassbakk-Brovold K Antonsen A Berntsen S Kersten C Fegran L Experiences of patients with breast cancer of participating in a lifestyle intervention study while receiving adjuvant chemotherapy Cancer Nurs 2017 41 1 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000476 28221215

99. Monteiro-Guerra F Signorelli G Rivera O Zubiete E Caulfield B Breast cancer survivors’ perspectives on motivational and personalization strategies in mobile app-based physical activity coaching interventions: a qualitative study JMIR mHealth uHealth 2020 8 9 e18867 10.2196/preprints.18867 32955446 PMC7536602

100. Hefferon K Murphy H McLeod J Mutrie N Campbell A Understanding barriers to exercise implementation 5-year post-breast cancer diagnosis: a large-scale qualitative study Health Educ Res 2013 28 5 843 856 10.1093/her/cyt083 23969632

101. Nielsen AM Welch WA Gavin KL Cottrell AM Solk P Torre EA Blanch-Hartigan D Phillips SM Preferences for mHealth physical activity interventions during chemotherapy for breast cancer: a qualitative evaluation Support Care Cancer 2020 28 4 1919 1928 10.1007/s00520-019-05002-w 31367917 PMC6992480

102. Courneya K Friedenreich C Quinney H Fields A Jones L Vallance J A longitudinal study of exercise barriers in colorectal cancer survivors participating in a randomized controlled trial Ann Behav Med 2005 29 2 147 153 10.1207/s15324796abm2902_9 15823788

103. Romero-Elías M Beltrán-Carrillo VJ González-Cutre D Jiménez-Loaisa A Barriers to physical activity participation in colorectal cancer patients during chemotherapy treatment: a qualitative study Eur J Oncol Nurs 2020 46 101769 10.1016/j.ejon.2020.101769 32506009

104. Ray A Twarozek A Williams B Erwin D Underwood Willie III Mahoney M Exercise in African American and white colorectal aancer survivors: a mixed-methods approach Rehabil Oncol. 2018 36 4 1 197 10.1097/01.REO.0000000000000125 PMC6241321 30467528

105. Mas S Quantin X Ninot G Barriers to, and facilitators of physical activity in patients receiving chemotherapy for lung cancer: an exploratory study J Palliat Care 2015 31 2 89 96 10.1177/082585971503100204 26201210

106. Evans O Rose B Cave J Calman L Fatigue and physical activity in lung cancer patients treated with immunotherapy: a mixed methods study Psychooncology. 2020 29 22

107. Sun V Raz D Kim J Melstrom L Hite S Varatkar G Barriers and facilitators of adherence to a perioperative physical activity intervention for older adults with cancer and their family caregivers J Geriatr Oncol. 2019 11 2 256 62 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.06.003 31208829 PMC6911031

108. Kimball B Nortey Asiedu GB Thompson C Building a healthy body after cancer: Young adult lymphoma survivors’ perspectives on exercise after cancer treatment J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2017 7 2 217 29 10.1089/jayao.2017.0093 29272188

109. Mizrahi D Broderick C Samara J Ryan M Friedlander M Physical activity in women with ovarian cancer: investigating the barriers and feasibility of exercise Int J Gynecol Cancer 2015 25 4 577 583 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000349 25628105

110. Mizrahi D Naumann F Broderick C Samara J Ryan M Friedlander M Quantifying physical activity and the associated barriers for women with ovarian cancer Int J Gynecol Cancer 2015 25 577 583 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000349 25628105

111. Zhang X McClean D Ko E Morgan M Schmitz K Exercise among women with ovarian cancer: a feasibility and pre−/post-test exploratory pilot study Oncol Nurs Forum 2017 44 3 366 374 10.1188/17.ONF.366-374 28635971

112. Keogh J Patel A MacLeod R Masters J Perceived barriers and facilitators to physical activity in men with prostate cancer: possible influence of androgen deprivation therapy Eur J Cancer Care. 2013 23 2 263 273 10.1111/ecc.12141 24134506

113. Hackshaw-McGeagh L Sutton E Persad R Aning J Bahl A Koupparis A Acceptability of dietary and physical activity lifestyle modification for men following radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer: a qualitative investigation BMC Urol 2017 17 1 94 10.1186/s12894-017-0284-5 29017509 PMC5633894

114. Dewhurst S Tigue R Sandsund C Mein G Shaw C Factors influencing people’s ability to maintain their activity levels during treatment for soft tissue sarcoma-a qualitative study Physiotherapy. 2017 103 e141 10.1016/j.physio.2017.11.201 30216104

115. Dewhurst S Tigue R Sandsund C Mein G Shaw C Factors influencing people’s ability to maintain their activity levels during treatment for soft tissue sarcoma – a qualitative study Physiother Theory Pract 2020 36 8 923 932 10.1080/09593985.2018.1519622 30216104

116. Farrokhzadi L Dhillon H Goumas C Young J Cust A Physical activity correlates, barriers, and preferences for women with gynecological cancer Int J Gynecol Cancer 2016 26 8 1530 1537 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000790 27488217

117. Grimshaw SL Taylor NF Mechinaud F Conyers R Shields N Physical activity for children undergoing acute cancer treatment: a qualitative study of parental perspectives Pediatr Blood Cancer 2020 67 6 e28264 10.1002/pbc.28264 32277806

118. Adamsen L Andersen C Lillelund C Bloomquist K Møller T Rethinking exercise identity: a qualitative study of physically inactive cancer patients’ transforming process while undergoing chemotherapy BMJ Open 2017 7 8 e016689 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016689 28838897 PMC5629696

119. Yang D Hausien O Aqeel M Klonis A Foster J Renshaw D Physical activity levels and barriers to exercise referral among patients with cancer Patient Educ Couns 2017 100 7 1402 1407 10.1016/j.pec.2017.01.019 28189469

120. Ottenbacher A Day R Taylor W Sharma S Sloane R Snyder D Exercise among breast and prostate cancer survivors—what are their barriers? J Cancer Surviv 2011 5 4 413 419 10.1007/s11764-011-0184-8 21598023 PMC3223316

121. Bluethmann SM Foo W Winkels RM Mama SK Schmitz KH Physical activity in older cancer survivors: what role do multimorbidity and perceived disability play? J Aging Phys Act 2019 28 2 311 319 10.1123/japa.2019-0086 PMC7200277 31693992

122. Shoaf LD Hilton AL Patel RH Perceived barriers and facilitators to exercise during and subsequent to cancer treatment in cancer survivors Rehabil Oncol 2020 38 E21

123. Enblom A Lindquist H Bergmark K Participation in water-exercising long-term after breast cancer surgery: experiences of significant factors for continuing exercising as a part of cancer rehabilitation Eur J Cancer Care. 2017 27 1 e12736 10.1111/ecc.12736 28809066

124. Larsson IL Jönsson C Olsson AC Gard G Johansson K Women’s experience of physical activity following breast cancer treatment Scand J Caring Sci 2008 22 3 422 429 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2007.00546.x 18466196

125. Nock N, Owusu C, Flocke S, Krejci S, Kullman E, Austin K, et al. A community-based exercise and support group program improves quality of life in African-American breast cancer survivors: A quantitative and qualitative analysis. Int J Sport Exerc Med. 2015;1. 10.23937/2469-5718/1510020. 10.23937/2469-5718/1510020 PMC4667740 26640827

126. Narayanan V Koshy C Fatigue in cancer: a review of literature Indian J Palliat Care 2009 15 1 19 25 10.4103/0973-1075.53507 20606851 PMC2886215

127. Cramp F Byron-Daniel J Exercise for the management of cancer-related fatigue in adults Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012 11 CD006145 23152233 10.1002/14651858.CD006145.pub3 PMC8480137

128. IJsbrandy C Harten W Gerritsen W Hermens R Ottevanger P Healthcare professionals’ perspectives of barriers and facilitators in implementing physical activity programmes delivered to cancer survivors in a shared-care model: a qualitative study Support Care Cancer 2020 28 7 3429 3440 10.1007/s00520-019-05108-1 31792881 PMC7256088

129. Richardson EV Smith B Papathomas A Disability and the gym: experiences, barriers and facilitators of gym use for individuals with physical disabilities Disabil Rehabil 2017 39 19 1950 1957 10.1080/09638288.2016.1213893 27626359

130. Rimmer J Padalabalanarayanan S Malone L Mehta T Fitness facilities still lack accessibility for people with disabilities Disabil Health J. 2016 10 214 21 10.1016/j.dhjo.2016.12.011 28143707

131. Calder A Sole G Mulligan H The accessibility of fitness centers for people with disabilities: a systematic review Disabil Health J. 2018 11 4 525 536 10.1016/j.dhjo.2018.04.002 29936142