Cancer survivors are often highly motivated to seek information about food choices, physical activity, and dietary supplements to improve their treatment outcomes, quality of life, and overall survival. To address these concerns, the American Cancer Society (ACS) convened a group of experts in nutrition, physical activity, and cancer survivorship to evaluate the scientific evidence and best clinical practices related to optimal nutrition and physical activity after the diagnosis of cancer. This report summarizes their findings and is intended to present health care providers with the best possible information with which to help cancer survivors and their families make informed choices related to nutrition and physical activity. The report discusses nutrition and physical activity guidelines during the continuum of cancer care, briefly highlighting important issues during cancer treatment and for patients with advanced cancer, but focusing largely on the needs of the population of individuals who are disease free or who have stable disease following their recovery from treatment. It also discusses select nutrition and physical activity issues such as body weight, food choices, food safety, and dietary supplements; issues related to selected cancer sites; and common questions about diet, physical activity, and cancer survivorship.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) publishes the Diet and Physical Activity Guideline to serve as a foundation for its communication, policy, and community strategies and, ultimately, to affect dietary and physical activity patterns among Americans. This guideline is developed by a national panel of experts in cancer research, prevention, epidemiology, public health, and policy, and reflects the most current scientific evidence related to dietary and activity patterns and cancer risk. The ACS guideline focuses on recommendations for individual choices regarding diet and physical activity patterns, but those choices occur within a community context that either facilitates or creates barriers to healthy behaviors. Therefore, this committee presents recommendations for community action to accompany the 4 recommendations for individual choices to reduce cancer risk. These recommendations for community action recognize that a supportive social and physical environment is indispensable if individuals at all levels of society are to have genuine opportunities to choose healthy behaviors.

The overall 5‐year relative survival rate for all cancers combined is now 68%, and there are over 16.9 million survivors in the United States. Evidence from laboratory and observational studies suggests that factors such as diet, physical activity, and obesity may affect risk for recurrence and overall survival after a cancer diagnosis. The purpose of this American Cancer Society guideline is to provide evidence‐based, cancer‐specific recommendations for anthropometric parameters, physical activity, diet, and alcohol intake for reducing recurrence and cancer‐specific and overall mortality. The audiences for this guideline are health care providers caring for cancer survivors as well as cancer survivors and their families. The guideline is intended to serve as a resource for informing American Cancer Society programs, health policy, and the media. Sources of evidence that form the basis of this guideline are systematic literature reviews, meta‐analyses, pooled analyses of cohort studies, and large randomized clinical trials published since 2012. Recommendations for nutrition and physical activity during cancer treatment, informed by current practice, large cancer care organizations, and reviews of other expert bodies, are also presented. To provide additional context for the guidelines, the authors also include information on the relationship between health‐related behaviors and comorbidities, long‐term sequelae and patient‐reported outcomes, and health disparities, with attention to enabling survivors' ability to adhere to recommendations. Approaches to meet survivors' needs are addressed as well as clinical care coordination and resources for nutrition and physical activity counseling after a cancer diagnosis.

BackgroundYoung people (aged 16-24 years) with long-term health conditions can disengage from health services, resulting in poor health outcomes, but clinicians in the UK National Health Service (NHS) are using digital communication to try to improve engagement. Evidence of effectiveness of this digital communication is equivocal. There are gaps in evidence as to how it might work, its cost, and ethical and safety issues.ObjectiveOur objective was to understand how the use of digital communication between young people with long-term conditions and their NHS specialist clinicians changes engagement of the young people with their health care; and to identify costs and necessary safeguards.MethodsWe conducted mixed-methods case studies of 20 NHS specialist clinical teams from across England and Wales and their practice providing care for 13 different long-term physical or mental health conditions. We observed 79 clinical team members and interviewed 165 young people aged 16-24 years with a long-term health condition recruited via case study clinical teams, 173 clinical team members, and 16 information governance specialists from study NHS Trusts. We conducted a thematic analysis of how digital communication works, and analyzed ethics, safety and governance, and annual direct costs.ResultsYoung people and their clinical teams variously used mobile phone calls, text messages, email, and voice over Internet protocol. Length of clinician use of digital communication varied from 1 to 13 years in 17 case studies, and was being considered in 3. Digital communication enables timely access for young people to the right clinician at the time when it can make a difference to how they manage their health condition. This is valued as an addition to traditional clinic appointments and can engage those otherwise disengaged, particularly at times of change for young people. It can enhance patient autonomy, empowerment and activation. It challenges the nature and boundaries of therapeutic relationships but can improve trust. The clinical teams studied had not themselves formally evaluated the impact of their intervention. Staff time is the main cost driver, but offsetting savings are likely elsewhere in the health service. Risks include increased dependence on clinicians, inadvertent disclosure of confidential information, and communication failures, which are mostly mitigated by young people and clinicians using common-sense approaches.ConclusionsAs NHS policy prompts more widespread use of digital communication to improve the health care experience, our findings suggest that benefit is most likely, and harms are mitigated, when digital communication is used with patients who already have a relationship of trust with the clinical team, and where there is identifiable need for patients to have flexible access, such as when transitioning between services, treatments, or lived context. Clinical teams need a proactive approach to ethics, governance, and patient safety.

Health Services and Delivery ResearchISSN 2050-4349 (Print) ISSN 2050-4357 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.ukThe full HS&DR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Services and Delivery Research journalReports are published in Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HS&DR programme or programmes which preceded the HS&DR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. HS&DR programmeThe Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was established to fund a broad range of research. It combines the strengths and contributions of two previous NIHR research programmes: the Health Services Research (HSR) programme and the Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO) programme, which were merged in January 2012.The HS&DR programme aims to produce rigorous and relevant evidence on the quality, access and organisation of health services including costs and outcomes, as well as research on implementation. The programme will enhance the strategic focus on research that matters to the NHS and is keen to support ambitious evaluative research to improve health services.For more information about the HS&DR programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HS&DR programme or one of its preceding programmes as project number 12/209/51. The contractual start date was in May 2014. The final report began editorial review in August 2016 and was accepted for publication in April 2017. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HS&DR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Department of Health and Social Care. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Departm...