运动肿瘤学试验中的传播规划——试验方案的系统评价

Dissemination planning in exercise oncology trials-a systematic review of trial protocols.

作者信息

Smyth Emily, Politi Lydia, Guinan Emer, Mockler David, O'Neill Linda

机构信息

Discipline of Physiotherapy, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Trinity St James's Cancer Institute, Dublin, Ireland.

出版信息

Support Care Cancer. 2025 May 15;33(6):473. doi: 10.1007/s00520-025-09532-4.

DOI:10.1007/s00520-025-09532-4

PMID:40369320

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12078369/

Abstract

PURPOSE

The paucity of exercise rehabilitation services for cancer survivors indicates a research-to-practice gap. Dissemination and Implementation research addresses this gap by focusing on the adoption, implementation, and sustainability of evidence-based interventions. Dissemination, the active process of sharing research findings, is critical to the implementation of evidence-based practice. This systematic review examined adherence of exercise oncology trial protocols to the SPIRIT 2013 checklist items pertaining to dissemination planning, items 31a, 31b, and 31c, which address how dissemination is planned, authorship eligibility is considered, and what plans are in place to share data and the protocol.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science-Core Collection, Google Scholar, and the Central Trial Registry via Cochrane were searched (16/05/2024). Title and abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction were completed in duplicate.

RESULTS

Eighty-six trial protocols were included, thirty-one (36.1%) did not report dissemination plans. Item 31 was reported as follows (n = number of trials, frequency (%)); 31a plans to communicate trial results to: participants (n = 19, 22.1%), healthcare professionals (n = 43, 50%), the public (n = 25, 29.2%), and other relevant groups (n = 22, 25.6%), 31b: author eligibility (n = 3, 3.5%) and plans regarding use of professional writers (n = 4, 4.7%), and 31c plans for granting access to participant level dataset (n = 28, 32.6%), full protocol (n = 1, 1.2%) and statistical code (n = 1, 1.2%). Peer-reviewed journal (n = 41, 47.67%) and conferences/professional meetings (n = 38, 44.2%) were the most frequently reported planned dissemination strategies.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of the SPIRIT 2013 checklist Item 31 is generally low in exercise oncology trial protocols. Greater consideration of dissemination planning is required to support the implementation of exercise oncology research into practice.

REGISTRATION

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/M8HFP.

摘要

目的

癌症幸存者的运动康复服务匮乏，这表明研究与实践之间存在差距。传播与实施研究通过关注循证干预措施的采用、实施和可持续性来弥补这一差距。传播作为分享研究结果的积极过程，对于循证实践的实施至关重要。本系统评价考察了运动肿瘤学试验方案对《标准方案条目与试验登记（SPIRIT）2013》中与传播计划相关的清单项目（项目31a、31b和31c）的依从性，这些项目涉及传播计划的制定方式、作者资格的考量以及共享数据和方案的计划。

方法

按照《系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）》指南进行系统评价。检索了EMBASE、MEDLINE、护理学与健康领域数据库（CINAHL）、科学引文索引核心合集（Web of Science-Core Collection）、谷歌学术以及通过考克兰协作网的中央试验注册库（检索日期为2024年5月16日）。标题和摘要筛选、全文审查以及数据提取均重复进行。

结果

纳入了86个试验方案，其中31个（36.1%）未报告传播计划。项目31的报告情况如下（n =试验数量，频率（%））；31a将试验结果传达给以下对象的计划：参与者（n = 19，22.1%）、医疗保健专业人员（n = 43，50%）、公众（n = 25，29.2%）以及其他相关群体（n = 22，25.6%），31b：作者资格（n = 3，3.5%）以及关于使用专业撰写人员的计划（n = 4，4.7%），31c提供参与者层面数据集访问权限的计划（n = 28，32.6%）、完整方案（n = 1，1.2%）以及统计代码（n = 1，1.2%）。同行评审期刊（n = 41，47.67%）和会议/专业会议（n = 38，44.2%）是最常报告的计划传播策略。