Kellie Toohey

Background Generative AI (GenAI) presents both opportunities and challenges for higher education. While it offers the potential to personalise learning and improve educator processes, concerns around academic integrity and output accuracy persist. Health professionals must navigate this landscape carefully to ensure technology augments, rather than compromises, the development of core clinical and professional competencies in higher education. Objective This study aimed to develop a framework for implementing GenAI into the curriculum. To achieve this, a synthesis of the existing evidence on the applications, benefits, and challenges of GenAI in health professions education was required. Methods To achieve the required knowledge for the development of the framework, a systematic scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and reported using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC databases was performed to identify relevant studies. A narrative synthesis was used to map the literature across key themes to inform the framework’s development. Results: The review included 21 studies, which highlighted the use of GenAI by educators and students to aid in productivity and learning. Key challenges identified included the risk of generating inaccurate content, the potential for misuse, and the critical need for enhanced GenAI literacy among both students and staff. The findings were synthesised into three primary domains: educator use, student use, and assessment design and purpose. Conclusion The integration of GenAI in health education requires a structured, proactive approach. We propose an evidence-informed framework centred on three core pillars: Student GenAI Literacy, Educator Capability, and Assessment Design. This framework provides a roadmap for institutions to harness GenAI responsibly, ensuring it serves as a tool to support critical thinking and professional judgement.

Purpose Cancer is a leading cause of death and disability. Chemotherapy is one of the most common treatments. Physical activity (PA) can improve chemotherapy side effects, fatigue, adherence, survival rates and quality of life. However, people who are undergoing chemotherapy are insufficiently active. This review aimed to identify the barriers to PA in adults who are undergoing chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer. Methods Databases were searched for articles that met the eligibility criteria and screened to determine eligibility and risk of bias using the Clinical Appraisal Study Programme Qualitative Checklist. Studies included adults aged > 18 years who were currently undergoing chemotherapy for any type or stage of cancer. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to develop themes, which were deductively mapped to the capability, opportunity, motivation behaviour (COM-B) model and presented narratively. The behaviour change wheel intervention functions enabled identification of potential strategies to address barriers. Results A total of 9774 articles were screened. Twenty studies were eligible, including 1085 participants. Side effects of cancer and chemotherapy, other health conditions (capability), knowledge gaps, accessibility, environmental factors, and lack of social support (opportunity); negative emotional response, not having time/prioritising other commitments, and low motivation (motivation) were identified as barriers to PA. Fatigue was the most commonly identified single barrier. Intervention functions to improve PA levels include environmental restructuring, education, training and enablement. Conclusion The most commonly reported barriers to PA in people who are undergoing chemotherapy included side effects of cancer and chemotherapy, not having time/prioritising other commitments, knowledge and accessibility. Changes to service accessibility and delivery, and education for the cancer care team and people who are undergoing chemotherapy should be implemented to support increasing PA levels.

Purpose: Physical activity (PA) during chemotherapy can lessen side effects, support treatment adherence, and improve overall outcomes, yet the barriers to PA in this population remain underexplored. This study assessed self-reported PA levels, barriers, and sources of PA education among adults with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among adult outpatients receiving chemotherapy in the ACT, Australia. The survey collected demographic information, PA levels using the modified Godin–Shephard Leisure Time Questionnaire, barriers to PA, and sources of PA education. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed. Results: Of 111 participants (mean age 59.2), only 11.7% met ‘active’ PA status and 9.9% met resistance exercise guidelines. Barriers included fatigue, strength, pain, motivation, nausea, and lack of time. Notably, almost one-third received no PA education during chemotherapy, and nearly half wanted more. Education by accredited exercise physiologists increased resistance exercise participation. Conclusions: Few participants met PA recommendations during chemotherapy, with many reporting insufficient PA education and significant barriers. These findings highlight critical gaps in patient care and education. Addressing these through integrated, evidence-based PA programs and policy changes could enhance patient health, improve outcomes, and reduce disparities in supportive cancer care.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy is a common and debilitating side effect of cancer treatment. While exercise has shown promise in alleviating this burden, it remains underutilised in clinical practice due to the lack of accessible, clinician-friendly guidance. Aim: This review aimed to synthesise current evidence on exercise interventions for managing chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and provide practical insights to support clinicians in integrating these approaches into patient care. Methods: A search was conducted across MEDLINE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus using keywords related to exercise and CIPN. Studies were included if they involved adults receiving neurotoxic chemotherapy and exercise-based interventions. Two authors independently screened studies and resolved conflicts with a third author. Study quality was assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Tools, and only studies meeting a minimum quality standard were included. A balanced sampling approach was employed. Data on study design, participant characteristics, interventions, and outcomes were extracted. Results: Eleven studies were included, covering various exercise modalities: multimodal (n = 5), yoga (n = 2), aerobic (n = 1), resistance (n = 1), balance (n = 1), and sensorimotor (n = 1). Exercise interventions, particularly multimodal exercise, significantly improved symptom severity, functionality, and quality of life (p < 0.05). The studies had high methodological quality, with randomised controlled trials scoring between 9/13 and 11/13, and quasi-experimental studies scoring 8/9 on JBI tools. Conclusions: This review highlights the significant benefits of exercise, especially multimodal exercise, for managing CIPN and provides guidance for integrating these strategies into clinical practice. Future research is needed to refine exercise prescriptions and develop standardised guidelines.

Purpose: Breast cancer is the most prevalent malignancy in women. Prehabilitation may offer improvements in physical and psychological wellbeing among participants prior to treatment. This systematic review aimed to determine the efficacy of prehabilitation in participants diagnosed with breast cancer. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines. Studies exploring the impact of prehabilitation in participants with breast cancer were included. Studies were assessed independently according to pre-eligibility criteria, with data extraction and methodological quality assessed in parallel. Results: 3184 records were identified according to our search criteria, and 14 articles were included. Articles comprised of quantitative randomised controlled trials (n = 7), quantitative non-randomised studies (n = 5), a qualitative study (n = 1), and a mixed-method study (n = 1). The majority of selected studies completed exercise programs (n = 4) or had exercise components (n = 2), with two focusing on upper-limb exercise. Five articles reported complementary and alternative therapies (n = 5). Two articles reported smoking cessation (n = 2), with a single study reporting multi-modal prehabilitation (n = 1). Mostly, prehabilitation improved outcomes including physical function, quality of life, and psychosocial variables (P < 0.05). The qualitative data identified preferences for multimodal prehabilitation, compared to unimodal with an interest in receiving support for longer. Conclusions: Prehabilitation for patients with breast cancer is an emerging research area that appears to improve outcomes, however, ensuring that adequate intervention timeframes, follow-up, and population groups should be considered for future investigations. Implications for Cancer Survivors: The implementation of prehabilitation interventions for individuals diagnosed with breast cancer should be utilised by multidisciplinary teams to provide holistic care to patients as it has the potential to improve outcomes across the cancer care trajectory.

PurposeBreast cancer is the most prevalent malignancy in women. Prehabilitation may offer improvements in physical and psychological wellbeing among participants prior to treatment. This systematic review aimed to determine efficacy of prehabilitation in participants diagnosed with breast cancer. MethodsA systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines. Studies exploring the impact of prehabilitation in participants with breast cancer were included. Studies were assessed independently according to pre-eligibility criteria, with data extraction and methodological quality assessed in parallel. Results3184 records were identified according to search criteria, 14 articles were included. Articles comprised of quantitative randomised controlled trials (n=7), quantitative non-randomised studies (n=5), a qualitative study (n=1), and mixed method study (n=1). The majority of selected studies completed exercise programs (n=4) or had exercise components (n=2), with two focusing on upper-limb exercise. Two articles reported smoking cessation, with single studies reporting multi-modal prehabilitation (n=1), and complementary and alternative therapies (n=5). Mostly, prehabilitation improved outcomes including: physical function, quality of life, and psychosocial variables (P<0.05). The qualitative data identified preferences for multi-modal prehabilitation, compared to unimodal with interest in receiving support for longer. ConclusionsPrehabilitation for patients with breast cancer is an emerging research area that appears to improve outcomes, however ensuring adequate intervention timeframes, follow-up and population groups should be considered for future investigations. Implications for Cancer SurvivorsThe implementation of prehabilitation interventions for individuals diagnosed with breast cancer should be utilised by multidisciplinary teams to provide holistic care to patients as it has the potential to improve outcomes across the cancer care trajectory.