Gymnastik- och idrottshögskolan, GIH

Purpose: Many people face multiple cancer- and treatment-related sequalae. Triage and referral to physical health services can manage such consequences, but a comprehensive understanding of available triage tools is lacking. This review (i) identifies tools used to triage to physical health services, (ii) maps tool characteristics and application outcomes and (iii) summarises existing gaps.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted (three databases, April 2024). Articles were included if they used a tool to triage to physical health services. Tools were classified by triaged disciplines (i.e., diet, exercise, physical rehabilitation, multidisciplinary) and screened physical impairments (e.g., malnutrition). Tool characteristics (e.g., triage method) and application outcomes (i.e., reach, triage rates) were extracted.

Results: Of 23,369 records retrieved, 67 studies were included. Studies comprised 78 instances of tool use (64 unique tools), where n = 33 triaged to dietetics (42%), n = 6 exercise (8%), n = 11 physical rehabilitation (14%), and n = 28 a combination of health disciplines (36%). Mean age was 65 years. Most tools were used during-treatment (45%), in hospital settings (62%), measured malnutrition/physical function (60%) and used single cut-off scores (68%). Reach and triage rates varied, with exercise (reach = 89%) and diet (triage = 63%) rates highest.

Conclusion: Many physical health triage tools exist, most solely for dietetics, with heterogeneous characteristics and application outcomes. Updated tools are needed for triage to exercise/physical rehabilitation, multiple age cohorts across the cancer continuum, and that potentially use multiple cut-off scores. Cancer care professionals can use this compendium to identify which tool characteristics best suit their healthcare setting, for optimal outcomes.