Digital inclusion (which includes skills, accessibility and connectivity to the internet and digital devices) is a ‘super social determinant of health’ because it affects many aspects of life that influence health. Older people are especially vulnerable to digital exclusion. Existing digital inclusion interventions are commonly offered opportunistically to people who come into contact with services, or in specific locations. The lack of systematic identification of need unintentionally excludes older people who may be most in need of support, and that support is not addressing their needs.

This multi-method project includes six workstreams: (1) A survey of people aged 65+ to ask about digital use and engagement. Survey data will be used to develop a model that predicts digital exclusion from data available in primary care records. (2) Testing, via a further survey, the external validity of the model to identify those who are digitally excluded. (3) Interviews with community service providers to identify, understand and define the components of existing digital inclusion services for older people. Concurrently, a rapid review of the literature will identify evidence for interventions aimed at supporting digitally excluded adults aged 65+. (4) Interviews with people aged 65+ representing a range of digital use will explore factors from the COM-B model that influence digital behaviours—their capability (C), opportunity (O) and motivation (M) relating to digital engagement. Analysis outputs will identify the intersectional nature of barriers or facilitators to digital inclusion. (5) Co-production workshops with older people and community service providers will identify key components of interventions that are required to address digital exclusion. Components will be mapped against existing interventions, and the ‘best fit’ intervention(s) refined. An implementation plan will be developed in parallel. (6) Feasibility testing of the refined intervention(s) to assess acceptability and obtain feedback on content and delivery mechanisms.

This study was approved by the Yorkshire & The Humber - Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee on 23 October 2023 (ref. 23/YH/0234). Findings will be disseminated in academic journals and shared at webinars, seminars, conferences and events arranged by organisations operating across the digital inclusion and older people fields.

https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN18306736

Cancer and its treatment can negatively impact physical function, general well-being and quality of life. An evidence-based strategy to manage this is to prescribe exercise. One approach is to prescribe exercise prehabilitation to improve pretreatment health and function. However, current exercise prehabilitation programmes are under-researched, and the quality of their reporting has not been systematically assessed.

This review aimed to identify the following: the characteristics of prehabilitation exercise programmes; how intensity, physical function, patient-reported outcomes and treatment-related outcomes were measured; the quality of reporting and programme implementation.

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported a cancer prehabilitation exercise intervention, reported outcomes relating to physical function and patient-reported outcomes, and full-text copies were available in English.

PubMed, Mednar and Scopus were screened for studies from inception until 4 of April 2024.

Exercise characteristics were extracted and manually charted in Microsoft Excel using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. The tool for the assessment of study quality and reporting in exercise (TESTEX) framework was used to assess study quality and intervention reporting.

1495 results were retrieved, 28 of which were included. Exercise sessions lasted a mean of 42.5±21.9 min and were completed 3.7±1.3 times per week. 22 studies implemented concurrent exercise, five prescribed aerobic, and one prescribed resistance. High-intensity exercise was prescribed in four studies, moderate-high in 12, seven prescribed moderate, three prescribed low-moderate, and one was low intensity. 10 studies prescribed exercise intensity using the Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale, five prescribed heart rate (HR) zones, six used a set workload, and seven did not monitor intensity. A mean TESTEX score of 9.3±2.3 out of 15 was achieved. The lowest scoring criterion (n=3) related to the reporting of the exercise dose.

There was heterogeneity among studies regarding exercise intervention characteristics and measures of effectiveness. The overall quality of reporting was satisfactory, yet inconsistencies were apparent regarding quantifying and monitoring exercise dose, which limits the ability of researchers and clinicians to replicate, evaluate or scale cancer prehabilitation exercise interventions, impeding evidence-based practice. As such, to be able to optimise cancer prehabilitation exercise programmes, research must first focus on improving the quality of reporting and standardising outcome measures and methods of monitoring and prescribing exercise.