Introduction The American College of Sports Medicine convened an International Multidisciplinary Roundtable on Exercise and Cancer in March 2018 to evaluate and translate the evidence linking physical activity and cancer prevention, treatment, and control. This article discusses findings from the Roundtable in relation to the biologic and epidemiologic evidence for the role of physical activity in cancer prevention and survival. Results The evidence supports that there are a number of biologically plausible mechanisms, whereby physical activity can influence cancer risk, and that physical activity is beneficial for the prevention of several types of cancer including breast, colon, endometrial, kidney, bladder, esophageal, and stomach. Minimizing time spent in sedentary behavior may also lower risk of endometrial, colon and lung cancers. Conversely, physical activity is associated with higher risk of melanoma, a serious form of skin cancer. Further, physical activity before and after a cancer diagnosis is also likely to be relevant for improved survival for those diagnosed with breast and colon cancer; with data suggesting that postdiagnosis physical activity provides greater mortality benefits than prediagnosis physical activity. Conclusions Collectively, there is consistent, compelling evidence that physical activity plays a role in preventing many types of cancer and for improving longevity among cancer survivors, although the evidence related to higher risk of melanoma demonstrates the importance of sun safe practices while being physically active. Together, these findings underscore the importance of physical activity in cancer prevention and control. Fitness and public health professionals and health care providers worldwide are encouraged to spread the message to the general population and cancer survivors to be physically active as their age, abilities, and cancer status will allow.

Adult cancer survivors suffer an extremely diverse and complex set of impairments, affecting virtually every organ system. Both physical and psychological impairments may contribute to a decreased health-related quality of life and should be identified throughout the care continuum. Recent evidence suggests that more cancer survivors have a reduced health-related quality of life as a result of physical impairments than due to psychological ones. Research has also demonstrated that the majority of cancer survivors will have significant impairments and that these often go undetected and/or untreated, and consequently may result in disability. Furthermore, physical disability is a leading cause of distress in this population. The scientific literature has shown that rehabilitation improves pain, function, and quality of life in cancer survivors. In fact, rehabilitation efforts can ameliorate physical (including cognitive) impairments at every stage along the course of treatment. This includes prehabilitation before cancer treatment commences and multimodal interdisciplinary rehabilitation during and after acute cancer treatment. Rehabilitation appears to be cost-effective and may reduce both direct and indirect health care costs, thereby reducing the enormous financial burden of cancer. Therefore, it is critical that survivors are screened for both psychological and physical impairments and then referred appropriately to trained rehabilitation health care professionals. This review suggests an impairment-driven cancer rehabilitation model that includes screening and treating impairments all along the care continuum in order to minimize disability and maximize quality of life.

This cross-sectional study examines whether racial and/or ethnic minority, female, and older adults are underrepresented in vaccine clinical trials compared with the US population.

Membership in medical societies is associated with a number of benefits to members that may include professional education, opportunities to present research, scientific and/or leadership training, networking, and others. In this perspective article, the authors address the value that medical specialty society membership and inclusion have in the development of an academic physician's career and how underrepresentation of women may pose barriers to their career advancement. Because society membership itself is not likely sufficient to support the advancement of academic physicians, this report focuses on one key component of advancement that also can be used as a measure of inclusion in society activities-the representation of women physicians among recipients of recognition awards. Previous reports demonstrated underrepresentation of women physicians among recognition award recipients from 2 physical medicine and rehabilitation specialty organizations, including examples of zero or near-zero results. This report investigated whether zero or near-zero representation of women physicians among recognition award recipients from medical specialty societies extended beyond the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation. Examples of the underrepresentation of women physicians, as compared with their presence in the respective field, was found across a range of additional specialties, including dermatology, neurology, anesthesiology, orthopedic surgery, head and neck surgery, and plastic surgery. The authors propose a call for action across the entire spectrum of medical specialty societies to: (1) examine gender diversity and inclusion data through the lens of the organization's mission, values, and culture; (2) transparently report the results to members and other stakeholders including medical schools and academic medical centers; (3) investigate potential causes of less than proportionate representation of women; (4) implement strategies designed to improve inclusion; (5) track outcomes as a means to measure progress and inform future strategies; and (6) publish the results to engage community members in conversation about the equitable representation of women.

Introduction The global pandemic due to SARS‐CoV‐2 has resulted in an expansion of telemedicine. Measures of quality and barriers for rapid use by patients and physicians are not well described. Objective To describe results from a quality improvement initiative during a rapid adoptive phase of telemedicine during the pandemic. Design Patient and physician satisfaction with synchronous audiovisual telemedicine visits was measured during the early adoptive phase (6 April 2020‐17 April 2020) within the division of sports medicine in an academic Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R) department. Patients were invited to participate in a quality improvement initiative by completing an online survey at the end of a telemedicine visit. Physicians completed a separate survey. Primary Outcome Measures Patient measures included visit type, duration of encounter, quality, and satisfaction. Physicians reported on experiences performed telemedicine. Results Surveys were completed by 119 patients (293 telemedicine encounters, response rate 40.6%) and 14 physiatrists. Telemedicine was utilized primarily for follow‐up visits (n = 74, 70.6%), and the most common duration was 15 to 29 minutes. Patients rated their telemedicine visit as “excellent” or “very good” across measures (91.6%‐95.0%) including addressing concerns, communication, developing a treatment plan, convenience, and satisfaction. Value of completing a future telemedicine visit was measured at 84.9%. Most reported estimated travel time saved was in excess of 30 minutes. Rate of no‐show was 2.7%. Most physicians (57.1%) had no prior experience with telemedicine visits, and most were comfortable performing these visits after completing 1 to 4 sessions (71%). Nearly all physicians (92.9%) rated their telemedicine experience as very good or excellent. The key barrier identified for telemedicine was technical issues. All physicians reported plans to perform telemedicine visits if reimbursement continues. Conclusions In summary, rapid expansion of telemedicine during the COVID‐19 pandemic was well‐received by a majority of patients and physicians. This suggests feasibility in rapid expansion of telemedicine for other outpatient sports medicine practices.

Guidelines promote high quality cancer care. Rehabilitation recommendations in oncology guidelines have not been characterized and may provide insight to improve integration of rehabilitation into oncology care. This report was developed as a part of the World Health Organization (WHO) Rehabilitation 2030 initiative to identify rehabilitation-specific recommendations in guidelines for oncology care. A systematic review of guidelines was conducted. Only guidelines published in English, for adults with cancer, providing recommendations for rehabilitation referral and assessment or interventions between 2009 and 2019 were included. 13840 articles were identified. After duplicates and applied filters, 4897 articles were screened. 69 guidelines were identified with rehabilitation-specific recommendations. Thirtyseven of the 69 guidelines endorsed referral to rehabilitation services but provided no specific recommendations regarding assessment or interventions. Thirty-two of the 69 guidelines met the full inclusion criteria and were assessed using the AGREE II tool. Twenty-one of these guidelines achieved an AGREE II quality score of ≥ 45 and were fully extracted. Guidelines exclusive to pharmacologic interventions and complementary and alternative interventions were excluded. Findings identify guidelines that recommend rehabilitation services across many cancer types and for various consequences of cancer treatment signifying that rehabilitation is a recognized component of oncology care. However, these findings are at odds with clinical reports of low rehabilitation utilization rates suggesting that guideline recommendations may be overlooked. Considering that functional morbidity negatively affects a majority of cancer survivors, improving guideline concordant rehabilitative care could have substantial impact on function and quality of life among cancer survivors. CA Cancer

The health care delivery system in the United States is challenged to meet the needs of a growing population of cancer survivors. A pressing need is to optimize overall function and reduce disability in these individuals. Functional impairments and disability affect most patients during and after disease treatment. Rehabilitation health care providers can diagnose and treat patients' physical, psychological, and cognitive impairments in an effort to maintain or restore function, reduce symptom burden, maximize independence and improve quality of life in this medically complex population. However, few care delivery models integrate comprehensive cancer rehabilitation services into the oncology care continuum. The Rehabilitation Medicine Department of the Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health with support from the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research convened a subject matter expert group to review current literature and practice patterns, identify opportunities and gaps regarding cancer rehabilitation and its support of oncology care, and make recommendations for future efforts that promote quality cancer rehabilitation care. The recommendations suggest stronger efforts toward integrating cancer rehabilitation care models into oncology care from the point of diagnosis, incorporating evidence-based rehabilitation clinical assessment tools, and including rehabilitation professionals in shared decision-making in order to provide comprehensive cancer care and maximize the functional capabilities of cancer

Cancer and its treatments introduce various adverse effects that may impact survivors’ physical, cognitive and psychological functioning. Frequently both tolerance to activity and exercise are affected as well. Rehabilitation providers should have substantive knowledge about the effect of cancer progression and common side effects associated with anti-neoplastic treatment to safely integrate rehabilitation interventions. Rehabilitation may mitigate loss of function and disability; however, these patients are among the most medically complex that providers treat. This report provides a focused review that synthesizes the current evidence regarding disease progression and oncology-directed treatment side effects within the context of safety considerations for rehabilitation interventions throughout the continuum of cancer care. Descriptive information regarding the evidence for precautions and contraindications is provided so that rehabilitation providers can promote a safe plan of rehabilitation care. It is incumbent upon but also challenging for rehabilitation providers to stay up to date on the many advances in cancer treatment, and there are many gaps in the literature regarding safety issues. Although further research is needed to inform care, this review provides clinicians with a framework to assess patients with the goal of safely initiating rehabilitation interventions.