Objectives: This systematic review set out to identify, evaluate and synthesise the evidence examining the effect of prehabilitation including exercise on postoperative outcomes following abdominal cancer surgery.Methods: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE 1946-2020, EMBASE 1947-2020, CINAHL 1937-2020, PEDro 1999-2020, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials 1991-2020) were systematically searched (until August 2020) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effects of prehabilitation interventions in patients undergoing abdominal cancer surgery. This review included any form of prehabilitation either unimodal or multimodal that included whole body and/or respiratory exercises as a stand-alone intervention or in addition to other prehabilitation interventions (such as nutrition and psychology) compared to standard care.Results: Twenty-two studies were included in the systematic review and 21 studies in the meta-analysis. There was moderate quality of evidence that multimodal prehabilitation improves pre-operative functional capacity as measured by 6 min walk distance (Mean difference [MD] 33.09 metres, 95% CI 17.69–48.50; p = <0.01) but improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness such as preoperative oxygen consumption at peak exercise (VO2 peak; MD 1.74 mL/kg/min, 95% CI −0.03–3.50; p = 0.05) and anaerobic threshold (AT; MD 1.21 mL/kg/min, 95% CI −0.34–2.76; p = 0.13) were not significant. A reduction in hospital length of stay (MD 3.68 days, 95% CI 0.92–6.44; p = 0.009) was observed but no effect was observed for postoperative complications (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.81, 95% CI 0.55–1.18; p = 0.27), pulmonary complications (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28–1.01; p = 0.05), hospital re-admission (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.61–1.90; p = 0.81) or postoperative mortality (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.43–2.09, p = 0.90).Conclusion: Multimodal prehabilitation improves preoperative functional capacity with reduction in hospital length of stay. This supports the need for ongoing research on innovative cost-effective prehabilitation approaches, research within large multicentre studies to verify this effect and to explore implementation strategies within clinical practise.

Effects of interventions for improving mental health of health professional students has not been established. This review analysed interventions to support mental health of health professional students and their effects. The full holdings of Medline, PsycINFO, EBM Reviews, Cinahl Plus, ERIC and EMBASE were searched until 15th April 2016. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials of undergraduate and post graduate health professional students, group interventions to support mental health compared to alternative education, usual curriculum or no intervention; and post-intervention measurements for intervention and control participants of mindfulness, anxiety, depression, stress/distress or burnout. Studies were limited to English and short term effects. Studies were appraised using the PEDro scale. Data were synthesised using meta-analysis. Four comparisons were identified: psychoeducation or cognitive-behavioural interventions compared to alternative education, and mindfulness or relaxation compared to control conditions. Cognitive-behavioural interventions reduced anxiety (-0.26; -0.5 to -0.02), depression (-0.29; -0.52 to -0.05) and stress (0.37; -0.61 to -0.13). Mindfulness strategies reduced stress (-0.60; -0.97 to -0.22) but not anxiety (95% CI -0.21 to 0.18), depression (95% CI -0.36 to 0.03) or burnout (95% CI -0.36 to 0.10). Relaxation strategies reduced anxiety (SMD -0.80; 95% CI -1.03 to -0.58), depression (-0.49; -0.88 to -0.11) and stress (-0.34; -0.67 to -0.01). Method quality was generally poor. Evidence suggests that cognitive-behavioural, relaxation and mindfulness interventions may support health professional student mental health. Further high quality research is warranted.

Objectives: Systematically review evidence examining association between preadmission socioeconomic position and physical function, health-related quality of life and survival following critical illness. Data Sources: Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL) and personal libraries were searched. Reference lists of eligible articles were cross-checked. Study Selection: Primary quantitative studies reporting association between socioeconomic position and physical function, health-related quality of life, or survival of adults admitted to the ICU were included. Data Extraction: Performed by two reviewers independently in duplicate using a prepiloted data extraction form. Quality appraisal was completed by two reviewers independently in duplicate using standardized algorithms and checklists. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines were followed. Data Synthesis: From 1,799 records, 10 studies were included, one examining association of socioeconomic position with health-related quality of life and five with survival. Four studies accounted for socioeconomic position in survival analyses. Patients with lower socioeconomic position were found to have higher ICU, in-hospital, 30-day, and long-term mortality and lower 6-month Short Form-12 Mental Component Summary scores. No articles examined socioeconomic position and performance-based physical function. Notable variability in methods of socioeconomic position assessment was observed. Conclusions: Lower socioeconomic position is associated with higher mortality and lower 6-month Short Form-12 Mental Component Summary scores following critical illness. Effect on performance-based physical function is unknown. We make recommendations for consistent socioeconomic position measurement in future ICU studies.

No abstract