ArticleBMJ open2026
How can a remotely delivered, personalised physical activity intervention for people with high risk of breast, lung and bowel cancer recurrence be implemented in England? Protocol for a mixed-methods process evaluation embedded in a feasibility basket trial.
Article in BMJ open, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are essential to determine intervention effectiveness yet they often fail to capture how and why interventions succeed or fail in different contexts. Embedding a process evaluation alongside a clinical trial allows exploration of implementation processes, intervention fidelity and contextual influences. The CANFit trial is a basket-design RCT evaluating a personalised, remotely delivered exercise intervention for people diagnosed with breast, lung and bowel cancer with increased risk of recurrence. This embedded process evaluation aims to understand how individual, team and organisational factors influence intervention delivery and uptake. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A concurrent, mixed-methods process evaluation will be conducted using a hybrid type 1 design. Data will be collected from multiple sources, including participant and trainer questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, intervention adherence logs, trainer diaries and observations. Five core implementation outcomes, guided by Proctor's framework-acceptability, appropriateness, fidelity, penetration and sustainability-will structure the evaluation. Quantitative data will be analysed descriptively and qualitative data will undergo framework analysis using both deductive and inductive coding. Data integration will occur through a convergent mixed-methods approach, using context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations to refine programme theory. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approvals were obtained through Hull York Medical School (ID: 23/SS/0060) and the UK NHS Health Research Authority (ID: 327663). All participants will provide informed consent before taking part. Data will be handled according to General Data Protection Regulation and University of Hull data management policies. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, stakeholder reports and lay summaries for participants and the public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN97662203.
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.