ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Current non-pharmacological practices for cancer-related fatigue in oncology rehabilitation: results of a national provider survey.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCancer-related fatigue (CRF) is one of the most common side effects of cancer treatment, yet there is little consensus on best non-pharmacologic practices to manage this debilitating side effect. The purpose of this study was to describe current non-pharmacologic practice patterns for managing CRF and barriers to rehabilitation.
methodsAn electronic survey, developed by the authors using the CHERRIES checklist, was piloted via REDCap™ by nine participants. Data collected included demographics, clinical experience, frequency (none of the time, some of the time, and all of the time) of 15 common non-pharmacologic CRF interventions derived by expert consensus, effectiveness of interventions, and barriers to care for CRF. The survey took approximately 7 min to complete and was distributed via emails or flyers to cancer support groups, listservs, recruitment flyers, and word of mouth. All analyses were descriptive, including frequencies and percentages, and were performed using Microsoft Excel.
resultsOne hundred ninety-seven rehabilitation providers completed the survey: physical therapy (60%), occupational therapy (20%), speech-language pathology (9%), and exercise physiology (5%). All disciplines indicated frequently applying more than one of the following within their CRF interventions: therapeutic activities (78%), aerobic/strengthening/flexibility exercise (73.1%), energy conservation strategies (57.4%), and self-management education (48.2%). All professions measured the effectiveness of their fatigue interventions using patients' subjective reports (e.g., fatigue severity). Barriers to receiving care were "appointment fatigue" and financial constraints.
conclusionsWhen developing CRF clinical practice guidelines, current rehabilitation practice patterns and survivors' barriers to care should be considered along with the highest level of evidence-based interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.