Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40074972›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2026

Healthcare provider perspectives on a clinical decision tool to support individualized exercise prescriptions and discussions for breast cancer survivors.

Jinani Jayasekera, Oliver W A Wilson, Kaitlyn M Wojcik, Eleanor M Kerr, Rachelle Brick, David Berrigan, Jennifer Yeong-Shin Sheng, Takeo Fujii, Kathleen Thomas, Henri K Parson and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Breast cancer survivors' perspectives on a clinical decision tool to support individualized exercise prescriptions and discussions.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Jinani JayasekeraNational Institute On Minority Health and Health Disparities, Intramural Research Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. jinani.jayasekera@nih.gov.ORCID 0000-0001-9212-7225
Oliver W A WilsonNational Institute On Minority Health and Health Disparities, Intramural Research Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0174-3813
Kaitlyn M WojcikNational Institute On Minority Health and Health Disparities, Intramural Research Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.ORCID 0009-0004-7290-6343
Eleanor M KerrRipple Effect Communications, Inc, Rockville, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9390-4655
Rachelle BrickHealth Systems and Interventions Research Branch of the Healthcare Delivery Research Program in the Division of Cancer Control & Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7099-7799
David BerriganDivision of Cancer Control & Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8037-3103
Jennifer Yeong-Shin ShengDepartment of Oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Takeo FujiiWomen's Malignancies Branch of the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3747-2688
Kathleen ThomasDepartment of Health, Physical Education, Exercise Science, Norfolk State University, Norfolk, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8843-6543
Henri K ParsonMacon and Joan Brock Virginia Health Sciences at Old Dominion University, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Padma Sheila RajagopalCancer Data Science Laboratory in the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0489-0819
Richard L StreetDepartment of Communication and Journalism at Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7392-9927

Funding

Health Equity and Decision SciencesZIAMD000022 · NIMHD · NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON MINORITY HEALTH AND HEALTH DISPARITIES · PI JAYASEKERA, JINANI · 2023 to 2025
$962k
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 MD999999Intramural NIH HHS ZIA MD000022NIH HHS ZIA MD000022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe evaluated healthcare providers' current knowledge, practices, and perspectives on a novel clinical decision tool (beta-version) to facilitate individualized exercise prescriptions and discussions in clinical settings.

methodsWe recruited healthcare providers who had treated or provided care to breast cancer survivors aged ≥ 35-years in the past 12 months. The participants were presented with a tool to provide individualized exercise recommendations considering women's individual, clinical, and contextual characteristics. Validated and reliable pre-existing instruments were used to survey providers' current knowledge, practices regarding exercise discussions, and perspectives on the beta-version (paper-draft) of the novel tool.

resultsThe sample consisted of complete survey responses from 177 healthcare providers including breast oncologists (27.7%), primary care physicians (10.7%), exercise specialists (19.8%), occupational/physical therapists (18.1%), advanced care providers, nurses, navigators, and social workers (23.7%). Median years of experience was 8-years (range: 5-13). Overall, 62.1% (n = 110) reported that they were knowledgeable about counseling survivors based on exercise guidelines. Among breast oncologists and primary care physicians (n = 68), only 39.7% reported that they were knowledgeable about identifying patients for exercise referals. The majority agreed that they would find the tool offering individualized information useful (n = 148, 83.6%), and would use it regularly to inform practice (82.5%). 'Exercise Readiness', 'Exercise Resources at Home', and 'Quality-of-Life' were the highest rated items for inclusion in the tool for exercise prescriptions. Provider perspectives were incorporated into the beta-version of the tool.

conclusionA clinical decision tool considering individual, clinical, and contextual characteristics may support exercise prescriptions and discussions in clinical settings. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: An evidence-based tool for exercise prescriptions may increase healthcare provider confidence to discuss, educate, encourage, and provide exercise referrals for breast cancer survivors.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCancer SurvivorsDecision Support Systems, ClinicalExerciseExercise TherapyHealth PersonnelAdultAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesBreast cancer survivorsClinical decision toolsExercise discussionsExercise prescriptions

Identifiers

PMID40074972
PMCPMC12310178

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.