Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Rehabilitation Oncology · October 1, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background: Current cancer rehabilitation training and education are fragmented and inconsistent. There are no standardized competencies for entry-level providers in rehabilitation disciplines who treat patients with a diagnosis of cancer. The purpose of this study was to develop consensus regarding cancer rehabilitation competencies for entry-level providers. Methods: Delphi methodology was used in a national, web-based survey design. Three surveys (N = 177, 176, 148) were sent to members of rehabilitation professional associations. Survey 1 topics were developed by the American Congress of Rehabilitation and Medicine Cancer Networking Group (ACRM CRNG) based on a literature review and current curricula. Likert-formatted responses from 1 (not important) to 5 (most important) were recorded. Topics receiving a median score of ≥4 from Survey 1 were included in Survey 2. For Survey 2, each participant identified 3 topics important to their discipline for each item. The results were reviewed, and similar responses were grouped together to develop Survey 3. Participants were asked to rank the responses in Survey 3 on the same Likert scale used in Survey 1. Results: Survey 1 had 6 topics that did not reach a median score of ≥4, and those topics were excluded from Survey 2. The results of Survey 2 were used to develop Survey 3. Survey 3 noted significant differences between professions in certain topics, especially those related to speech and language therapy, but continued to note the significance of these topics. Conclusion: This Delphi study is an important step in providing a framework for the standardization of cancer rehabilitation competencies.