Aims: Few cancer-specific exercise services exist across Australia and many cancer survivors have limited access to these due their location. This study aimed to determine the proximity of exercise-based cancer rehabilitation, fitness and recreation services to Victorian cancer survivors with view of providing guidance for future service provision.
Methods A geospatial analysis was conducted using a population-based cohort of people diagnosed with cancer in Victoria, Australia. Exercise services were identified through publicly available sources and classified according to the Cancer Rehabilitation to Recreation (CaReR) Framework as rehabilitation, fitness or recreation services. Residential addresses of cancer survivors from the Victorian Cancer Registry and identified exercise services were geocoded. Travel distance and time between survivors and services were calculated, including proportions of survivors living within 5, 7 and 11 km of services.
Results Of 324 verified exercise services identified, most (n=214, 66%) were in metropolitan areas. Services spanned the care continuum, with most (n=181, 56%) classified as fitness services. Exercise professionals (physiotherapists or exercise physiologists) delivered most services and were largely provided through private practice settings (48%). Only 41 (13%) cancer-specific group exercise programs were identified, most commonly within hospital rehabilitation services.
The mean distance from a cancer survivor’s residence to the nearest exercise service was 6.7 km (SD 12.6), equating to a mean travel time of 7.7 minutes (SD 10.8). Most survivors resided within 5 km (79%), 7 km (84%), and 11 km (89%) of any exercise service. Recreation services were the most geographically accessible, while fitness services had the greatest average travel distance.
Conclusions Most Victorian cancer survivors live within a short travel distance of an exercise service. Given the apparent geographic availability of services, barriers such as cost, awareness, referral pathways and service suitability may be more important determinants of access than proximity alone.