ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Oncol.

Sec. Head and Neck Cancer

Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1525512

This article is part of the Research TopicMultidisciplinary Management of Oral Cancer: Diagnosis, Treatment, and RehabilitationView all 10 articles

ACTivity as medicine In Oncology for Head and Neck (ACTIOHN): a feasibility study investigating a patient-centred approach to exercise for head and neck cancer patients

Provisionally accepted
Jo  M PattersonJo M Patterson1*Mary  G CherryMary G Cherry1Andrew  LevyAndrew Levy2Simon  N RogersSimon N Rogers3Rachel  C BrookerRachel C Brooker4Michael  M NugentMichael M Nugent5Jennifer  A KirtonJennifer A Kirton1Valerie  M BryantValerie M Bryant5Steven  LaneSteven Lane1Ruth  PriceRuth Price6Andrew  SchacheAndrew Schache1Bridget  YoungBridget Young1Adrian  Wayne MidgleyAdrian Wayne Midgley7
  • 1University of Liverpool, Liverpool, North West England, United Kingdom
  • 2Department of Psychology, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, United Kingdom
  • 3Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Upton, United Kingdom
  • 4Clatterbridge Hospital, Bebington, United Kingdom
  • 5South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust, South Shields, United Kingdom
  • 6Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom
  • 7Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, United Kingdom

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Objective: To determine the feasibility and acceptability of integrating a remote, personalised, collaborative, and flexible exercise programme into the head and neck cancer (HNC) care pathway.Design: A single arm mixed-methods feasibility study across two UK NHS hospitals.Procedure: Eligible HNC patients (aged ≥ 16 years old, treated with curative intent and classified as low/medium risk according to an exercise risk stratification tool) were invited to participate between diagnosis and 8 weeks post-treatment. Patients treated with palliative intent and those identified as high risk on an exercise risk stratification tool were excluded. Following initial assessment, Cancer Exercise Specialists (CESs) and patients collaboratively devised a personalised exercise programme based on a needs analysis, preferences and goals, and informed by physical activity cancer guidelines and theory. CESs were trained in behaviour change techniques. The intervention was flexible and delivered remotely across 8 weeks, with weekly meetings and texts, and an exercise maintenance plan agreed in the final session.Outcomes: Eligibility, recruitment, retention and exercise adherence were primary outcomes. Quantitative outcomes included quality-of-life, fatigue and physical activity questionnaires and physical fitness tests. A qualitative sub-study explored patients' and healthcare professionals' (HCPs') views on feasibility and acceptability.Results: 98% of patients screened were eligible; 107 patients were approached, and 76 consented (71%). Most (43%) were recruited pre-treatment. Three quarters were male and just over half had oropharyngeal cancer. Thirteen patients (17.1%) were withdrawn due to ill-health. Twenty-three (30.3%) patients dropped out, 13 after assessment but before the intervention, and ten during the intervention. Forty patients (52.6%) completed the intervention. Three quarters of exercise sessions were completed as prescribed. Patient interviews found the flexible, personalised approach valuable. Those not identifying as an 'exerciser' found the intervention more difficult to understand. The need for more education for both HCPs and patients regarding the benefits of exercise and its 'fit' within the HNC pathway was highlighted.Conclusion: This is a feasible and acceptable intervention, but some adjustments are required, to improve acceptability, recruitment processes, retention and adherence, before examining effectiveness in a definitive trial.

Keywords: head and neck cancer1, rehabilitation2, prehabilitation3, physical exercise4, Feasibility5, personalisation6, remote delivery7

Received: 09 Nov 2024; Accepted: 02 Jun 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Patterson, Cherry, Levy, Rogers, Brooker, Nugent, Kirton, Bryant, Lane, Price, Schache, Young and Midgley. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Jo M Patterson, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZX, North West England, United Kingdom

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.