Background Recently, the number of prehabilitation trials has increased significantly. The identification of key research priorities is vital in guiding future research directions. Thus, the aim of this collaborative study was to define key research priorities in prehabilitation for patients undergoing cancer surgery. Methods The Delphi methodology was implemented over three rounds of surveys distributed to prehabilitation experts from across multiple specialties, tumour streams and countries via a secure online platform. In the first round, participants were asked to provide baseline demographics and to identify five top prehabilitation research priorities. In successive rounds, participants were asked to rank research priorities on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was considered if > 70% of participants indicated agreement on each research priority. Results A total of 165 prehabilitation experts participated, including medical doctors, physiotherapists, dieticians, nurses, and academics across four continents. The first round identified 446 research priorities, collated within 75 unique research questions. Over two successive rounds, a list of 10 research priorities reached international consensus of importance. These included the efficacy of prehabilitation on varied postoperative outcomes, benefit to specific patient groups, ideal programme composition, cost efficacy, enhancing compliance and adherence, effect during neoadjuvant therapies, and modes of delivery. Conclusions This collaborative international study identified the top 10 research priorities in prehabilitation for patients undergoing cancer surgery. The identified priorities inform research strategies, provide future directions for prehabilitation research, support resource allocation and enhance the prehabilitation evidence base in cancer patients undergoing surgery.

This study examined the feasibility of implementing a multidisciplinary allied health model of care (MOC) for cancer patients with complex needs. The MOC in this retrospective study provided up to eight weeks of nutritional counselling, exercise prescription, fatigue management and psychological support. Implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, fidelity and appropriateness) were evaluated using nine patient interviews, and operational data and medical records of 185 patients referred between August 2017 and December 2018. Adoption, including intention to try and uptake, were acceptable: 88% of referred patients agreed to screening and 71% of eligible patients agreed to clinic participation. Fidelity was mixed, secondary to inpatient admissions and disease progression interrupting patient participation. Clinician compliance with outcome assessment was variable at program commencement (dietetic, 95%; physiotherapy, 91%; occupational therapy, 33%; quality of life, 23%) and low at program completion (dietetic, 32%; physiotherapy, 13%; occupational therapy, 10%; quality of life, 11%) mainly due to non-attendance. Patient interviews revealed high satisfaction and perceived appropriateness. Adoption of the optimisation clinic was acceptable. Interview responses suggest patients feel the clinic is both acceptable and appropriate. This indicates a multidisciplinary model is an important aspect of comprehensive, timely and effective care. However, fidelity was low, secondary to the complexities of the patient cohort.

No abstract

No abstract