Defining standards in colorectal optimisation: a Delphi study protocol to achieve international consensus on key standards for colorectal surgery prehabilitation

Patients' and carers' views on research priorities in prehabilitation for cancer surgery

INTRODUCTION

The views of patients and carers are important for the development of research priorities. This study aimed to determine and compare the top research priorities of cancer patients and carers with those of multidisciplinary clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study surveyed patients recovering from cancer surgery at a major tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia, and/or their carers between March and July 2023. Consenting patients and carers were provided a list of research priorities according to clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation, as determined in a recent International Delphi study. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each research priority using a 5-item Likert scale (ranging from 1 = very high research priority to 5 = very low research priority).

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients and 50 carers participated in this study. Four areas were identified as research priorities, achieving consensus of highest importance (> 70% rated as "high" or "very high" priority) by patients, carers, and clinical experts. These were "optimal composition of prehabilitation programs" (77% vs. 82% vs. 88%), "effect of prehabilitation on surgical outcomes" (85% vs. 90% vs. 95%), "effect of prehabilitation on functional outcomes" (83% vs. 86% vs. 79%), and "effect of prehabilitation on patient reported outcomes" (78% vs. 84% vs. 79%). Priorities that did not reach consensus of high importance by patients despite reaching consensus of highest importance by experts included "identifying populations most likely to benefit from prehabilitation" (70% vs. 76% vs. 90%) and "defining prehabilitation core outcome measures" (66% vs. 74% vs. 87%). "Prehabilitation during neoadjuvant therapies" reached consensus of high importance by patients but not by experts or carers (81% vs. 68% vs. 69%).

CONCLUSION

This study delineated the primary prehabilitation research priorities as determined by patients and carers, against those previously identified by clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation. It is recommended that subsequent high-quality research and resource allocation be directed towards these highlighted areas of importance.

International consensus is needed on a core outcome set to advance the evidence of best practice in cancer prehabilitation services and research

Prehabilitation aims to optimise patients' physical and psychological status before treatment. The types of outcomes measured to assess the impact of prehabilitation interventions vary across clinical research and service evaluation, limiting the ability to compare between studies and services and to pool data. An international workshop involving academic and clinical experts in cancer prehabilitation was convened in May 2022 at Sheffield Hallam University's Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre, England. The workshop substantiated calls for a core outcome set to advance knowledge and understanding of best practice in cancer prehabilitation and to develop national and international databases to assess outcomes at a population level.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Colorectal Surgery

Given the increased life expectancy and improvements in the treatment of colorectal patients, the success of a treatment course can no longer be determined only by objective outcomes. Health care providers ought to take into consideration the impact an intervention will have on the quality of life of patients. Endpoints that take into account the patient's perspective are defined as patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs are assessed through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), usually in the form of questionnaires. PROs are especially important in colorectal surgery, whose procedures can often be associated with some degree of postoperative functional impairment. Several PROMs are available for colorectal surgery patients. However, while some scientific societies have offered recommendations, there is no standardization in the field and PROMs are seldom implemented in clinical practice. The routine use of validated PROMs can guarantee that functional outcomes are followed over time; this way, they can be addressed in case of worsening. This review will provide an overview of the most commonly used PROMs in colorectal surgery, both generic and disease specific, as well as a summary of the available evidence in support of their routine utilization.

Considerations for multimodal prehabilitation in women with gynaecological cancers: a scoping review using realist principles

Background

There is increasing recognition that prehabilitation is important as a means of preparing patients physically and psychologically for cancer treatment. However, little is understood about the role and optimal nature of prehabilitation for gynaecological cancer patients, who usually face extensive and life-changing surgery in addition to other treatments that impact significantly on physiological and psychosexual wellbeing.

Review question

This scoping review was conducted to collate the research evidence on multimodal prehabilitation in gynaecological cancers and the related barriers and facilitators to engagement and delivery that should be considered when designing a prehabilitation intervention for this group of women.

Methods

Seven medical databases and four grey literature repositories were searched from database inception to September 2021. All articles, reporting on multimodal prehabilitation in gynaecological cancers were included in the final review, whether qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods. Qualitative studies on unimodal interventions were also included, as these were thought to be more likely to include information about barriers and facilitators which could also be relevant to multimodal interventions. A realist framework of context, mechanism and outcome was used to assist interpretation of findings.

Results

In total, 24 studies were included in the final review. The studies included the following tumour groups: ovarian only (n = 12), endometrial only (n = 1), mixed ovarian, endometrial, vulvar (n = 5) and non-specific gynaecological tumours (n = 6). There was considerable variation across studies in terms of screening for prehabilitation, delivery of prehabilitation and outcome measures. Key mechanisms and contexts influencing engagement with prehabilitation can be summarised as: (1) The role of healthcare professionals and organisations (2) Patients’ perceptions of acceptability (3) Factors influencing patient motivation (4) Prehabilitation as a priority (5) Access to prehabilitation.

Implications for practice

A standardised and well evidenced prehabilitation programme for women with gynaecological cancer does not yet exist. Healthcare organisations and researchers should take into account the enablers and barriers to effective engagement by healthcare professionals and by patients, when designing and evaluating prehabilitation for gynaecological cancer patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12905-022-01882-z.