White Georgia L, Capozzi Lauren C, Linton Corey, Wright Adrian, Jones Tamara, Wright Hattie H, Bolam Kate A, Johnston Elizabeth A, Clifford Briana K, Bean Keegan, Brown Stephanie, Kolesaric Sarah, Kennedy Mary A, Chan Bryan A, Rose Grace L
School of Health, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Queensland, Australia.
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Support Care Cancer. 2025 Aug 6;33(9):760. doi: 10.1007/s00520-025-09816-9.
Many people face multiple cancer- and treatment-related sequalae. Triage and referral to physical health services can manage such consequences, but a comprehensive understanding of available triage tools is lacking. This review (i) identifies tools used to triage to physical health services, (ii) maps tool characteristics and application outcomes and (iii) summarises existing gaps.
A systematic search was conducted (three databases, April 2024). Articles were included if they used a tool to triage to physical health services. Tools were classified by triaged disciplines (i.e., diet, exercise, physical rehabilitation, multidisciplinary) and screened physical impairments (e.g., malnutrition). Tool characteristics (e.g., triage method) and application outcomes (i.e., reach, triage rates) were extracted.
Of 23,369 records retrieved, 67 studies were included. Studies comprised 78 instances of tool use (64 unique tools), where n = 33 triaged to dietetics (42%), n = 6 exercise (8%), n = 11 physical rehabilitation (14%), and n = 28 a combination of health disciplines (36%). Mean age was 65 years. Most tools were used during-treatment (45%), in hospital settings (62%), measured malnutrition/physical function (60%) and used single cut-off scores (68%). Reach and triage rates varied, with exercise (reach = 89%) and diet (triage = 63%) rates highest.
Many physical health triage tools exist, most solely for dietetics, with heterogeneous characteristics and application outcomes. Updated tools are needed for triage to exercise/physical rehabilitation, multiple age cohorts across the cancer continuum, and that potentially use multiple cut-off scores. Cancer care professionals can use this compendium to identify which tool characteristics best suit their healthcare setting, for optimal outcomes.
许多人面临多种与癌症及治疗相关的后遗症。对身体健康服务进行分诊和转诊可以处理这些后果，但目前缺乏对现有分诊工具的全面了解。本综述（i）确定用于分诊至身体健康服务的工具，（ii）梳理工具特征和应用结果，（iii）总结现有差距。
进行了系统检索（2024年4月检索三个数据库）。如果文章使用了分诊至身体健康服务的工具，则将其纳入。工具按分诊学科（即饮食、运动、物理康复、多学科）和筛查的身体损伤（如营养不良）进行分类。提取工具特征（如分诊方法）和应用结果（即覆盖范围、分诊率）。
在检索到的23369条记录中，纳入了67项研究。这些研究包括78次工具使用实例（64种独特工具），其中n = 33分诊至饮食科（42%），n = 6至运动科（8%），n = 11至物理康复科（14%），n = 28涉及多个健康学科的组合（36%）。平均年龄为65岁。大多数工具在治疗期间使用（45%），在医院环境中使用（62%），测量营养不良/身体功能（60%），并使用单一临界值（68%）。覆盖范围和分诊率各不相同，运动科的覆盖范围最高（89%），饮食科的分诊率最高（63%）。
存在许多身体健康分诊工具，大多数仅用于饮食科，其特征和应用结果各不相同。需要更新工具，以便对运动/物理康复进行分诊，覆盖癌症连续过程中的多个年龄组，并且可能使用多个临界值。癌症护理专业人员可以使用本综述来确定哪种工具特征最适合其医疗环境，以实现最佳结果。
