Exploring factors influencing uptake and adherence to a home-based prehabilitation physical activity and exercise intervention for patients undergoing chemotherapy before major surgery (ChemoFit): a qualitative study

The acceptability of exercise prehabilitation before cancer surgery among patients, family members and health professionals: a mixed methods evaluation

PURPOSE

Exercise prehabilitation aims to increase preoperative fitness, reduce post-operative complications, and improve health-related quality of life. For prehabilitation to work, access to an effective programme which is acceptable to stakeholders is vital. The aim was to explore acceptability of exercise prehabilitation before cancer surgery among key stakeholders specifically patients, family members and healthcare providers.

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach (questionnaire and semi-structured interview) underpinned by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability was utilised. Composite acceptability score, (summation of acceptability constructs and a single-item overall acceptability construct), and median of each construct was calculated. Correlation analysis between the single-item overall acceptability and each construct was completed. Qualitative data was analysed using deductive and inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

244 participants completed the questionnaire and n=31 completed interviews. Composite acceptability was comparable between groups (p=0.466). Four constructs positively correlated with overall acceptability: affective attitude (r=0.453), self-efficacy (r=0.399), ethicality (r=0.298) and intervention coherence (r=0.281). Qualitative data confirmed positive feelings, citing psychological benefits including a sense of control. Participants felt flexible prehabilitation program would be suitable for everyone, identifying barriers and facilitators to reduce burden.

CONCLUSION

Exercise prehabilitation is highly acceptable to key stakeholders. Despite some burden, it is a worthwhile and effective intervention. Stakeholders understand its purpose, are confident in patients' ability to participate, and regard it is an important intervention contributing to patients' psychological and physical wellbeing.

IMPLICATIONS

•Introduction should be comprehensively designed and clearly presented, providing appropriate information and opportunity for questions. •Programmes should be patient-centred, designed to overcome barriers and address patients' specific needs and goals. •Service must be appropriately resourced with a clear referral-pathway.

Access, acceptance and adherence to cancer prehabilitation: a mixed-methods systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review is to better understand access to, acceptance of and adherence to cancer prehabilitation.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Embase, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, ProQuest Medical Library, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and grey literature were systematically searched for quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies published in English between January 2017 and June 2023. Screening, data extraction and critical appraisal were conducted by two reviewers independently using Covidence™ systematic review software. Data were analysed and synthesised thematically to address the question 'What do we know about access, acceptance and adherence to cancer prehabilitation, particularly among socially deprived and minority ethnic groups?' The protocol is published on PROSPERO CRD42023403776 RESULTS: Searches identified 11,715 records, and 56 studies of variable methodological quality were included: 32 quantitative, 15 qualitative and nine mixed-methods. Analysis identified facilitators and barriers at individual and structural levels, and with interpersonal connections important for prehabilitation access, acceptance and adherence. No study reported analysis of facilitators and barriers to prehabilitation specific to people from ethnic minority communities. One study described health literacy as a barrier to access for people from socioeconomically deprived communities.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited empirical research of barriers and facilitators to inform improvement in equity of access to cancer prehabilitation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

To enhance the inclusivity of cancer prehabilitation, adjustments may be needed to accommodate individual characteristics and attention given to structural factors, such as staff training. Interpersonal connections are proposed as a fundamental ingredient for successful prehabilitation.

The use of technology in cancer prehabilitation: a systematic review

Aim

This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of cancer prehabilitation programs delivered through technological enablers compared to conventional face-to-face interventions.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL for studies published from inception to February 6, 2024. Studies were included if they involved adult cancer patients in primary research, utilized technology for prehabilitation, and assessed functional, psychological, and quality of life outcomes.

Results

Sixteen studies were included, encompassing wearables, apps, teleprehabilitation, and virtual reality. All studies reported feasibility, but challenges included technical issues, lack of supervision, and non-compliance. Effectiveness depended on intervention rigor and technology type. Wearables offered objective monitoring but faced compliance issues. Videoconferencing provided supervision and could mitigate compliance concerns. Multimodal programs and intervention-specific outcome measures were recommended.

Conclusion

Technology-based prehabilitation programs seem feasible, but effectiveness depends on intervention design and technology employed. Future research should focus on developing robust evidence to guide clinical practice and explore the potential of integrated technological solutions.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022376028.

The impact of prehabilitation on outcomes in frail and high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Prehabilitation comprises multidisciplinary preoperative interventions including exercise, nutritional optimisation and psychological preparation aimed at improving surgical outcomes. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the impact of prehabilitation on postoperative outcomes in frail and high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Embase, Medline, CINAHAL and Cochrane databases were searched from January 2010 to January 2023 for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating unimodal (exercise) or multimodal prehabilitation programmes. Meta-analysis was limited to length of stay (primary end point), severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification ≥ Grade 3) and the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). The analysis was performed using RevMan v5.4 software.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (6 RCTs, 10 observational) reporting on 3339 patients (1468 prehabilitation group, 1871 control group) were included. The median (interquartile range) age was 74.0 (71.0-78.4) years. Multimodal prehabilitation was applied in fifteen studies and unimodal in one. Meta-analysis of nine studies showed a reduction in hospital length of stay (weighted mean difference -1.07 days, 95 % CI -1.60 to -0.53 days, P < 0.0001, I2 = 19 %). Ten studies addressed severe complications and a meta-analysis suggested a decline in occurrence by up to 44 % (odds ratio 0.56, 95 % CI 0.37 to 0.82, P < 0.004, I2 = 51 %). Four studies provided data on preoperative 6MWT. The pooled weighted mean difference was 40.1 m (95 % CI 32.7 to 47.6 m, P < 0.00001, I2 = 24 %), favouring prehabilitation.

CONCLUSION

Given the significant impact on shortening length of stay and reducing severe complications, prehabilitation should be encouraged in frail, older and high-risk adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.

Impact of a prehabilitation and recovery programme on emotional well-being in individuals undergoing cancer surgery: a multi-perspective qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation and recovery programmes aim to optimise patients' physical fitness and mental well-being before, during and after cancer treatment. This paper aimed to understand the impact of such a programme on emotional well-being in individuals undergoing cancer surgery. The programme was multi-modal, containing physical activity, well-being and nutritional support.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 individuals who participated in a prehabilitation and recovery programme. Twenty-four health care staff involved in referral completed an online survey. An inductive, thematic analysis was conducted, integrating perspectives of patients and staff, structured with the Framework approach.

RESULTS

Patients seemed to experience emotional benefits from the programme, appearing less anxious and more confident in their ability to cope with treatment. They seemed to value having something positive to focus on and control over an aspect of treatment. Ongoing, implicit psychological support provided by Exercise Specialists, who were perceived as expert, available and caring, seemed valued. Some patients appeared to appreciate opportunities to talk about cancer with peers and professionals. Discomfort with talking about cancer with other people, outside of the programme, was expressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Participation in a prehabilitation and recovery programme appeared to yield valuable emotional well-being benefits, even without referral to specialist psychological support.

STUDY REGISTRATION

The study protocol was uploaded onto the Open Science Framework 24 September 2020 ( https://osf.io/347qj/ ).

Barriers and Facilitators of Surgical Prehabilitation Adherence from the Patient Perspective: a Mixed Method Study

BACKGROUND

Adherence to prehabilitation is crucial for optimal benefit, but reasons for low adherence to home-based programs remain unexplored. Our aim was to identify and explore barriers and facilitators to prehabilitation adherence among patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Nested in a single-center randomized controlled trial on prehabilitation (Perioperative Optimization With Enhanced Recovery (POWER)), this study had an explanatory sequential design with a connect integration. Patients randomized to the intervention arm were included in the quantitative analysis, and a subset of them was invited for a semi-structured interview. The exposure was the frequency of barriers to physical activity and healthy eating, and the outcome was adherence to those components of prehabilitation. Logistic or linear regression was used as appropriate.

RESULTS

Among 133 participants in the intervention arm, 116 (87.2%) completed the initial survey ((56.9% women, median age 61 years old (IQR 49.0; 69.4)). The most frequent barriers to exercise and healthy eating were medical issues (59%) and lack of motivation (31%), respectively. There was no significant association between the barriers to physical activity score and adherence to this component of the program (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78-1.02, p=0.09). Higher barriers to healthy eating scores were associated with lower Mediterranean diet scores pre- and post-intervention (coef.: -0.32, 95% CI: -0.49; -0.15, p<0.001; and coef.: -0.27, 95% CI: -0.47; -0.07, p=0.01, respectively). Interviews with 15 participants revealed that participating in prehabilitation was a motivator for healthy eating and exercising through goal setting, time-efficient workouts, and promoting self-efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified key barriers to be addressed and facilitators to be leveraged in future prehabilitation programs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04504266.

Post-Cancer Treatment Reflections by Patients Concerning the Provisions and Support Required for a Prehabilitation Programme

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that physical fitness interventions, mental health support and nutritional advice before surgery (prehabilitation) could reduce hospital stay and improve quality of life of patients with cancer. In this study we captured the opinions of a group of patients with cancer undergoing these interventions after treatment to discover what a prehabilitation programme should encompass.

METHODS

Patients from the Cancer and Rehabilitation Exercise (CARE) programme based in Nottingham took part in a 26-point online questionnaire about the design of prehabilitation programmes.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed over a 2-week period in December 2021 by 54 patients from the CARE programme. Their responses were as follows: 44 (81.5%) participants would have participated in prehabilitation had it been available to them and 28 (51.9%) ranked physical exercise as the most important component. Forty (74.1%) participants believed the counselling aspect of prehabilitation would have contributed to a successful outcome and 35 (64.8%) thought dietary advice would have benefitted them before surgery. Thirty-one (57.4%) participants preferred the programme to take place in a fitness centre, rather than at home or hospital and 43 (79.6%) would have liked to have known about prehabilitation from their doctor at the time of diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are interested in prehabilitation to become more physically fit and mentally prepared for surgery. They expressed the need for a focus on physical exercise, counselling to improve mental health and personalised nutritional advice. Tailoring a prehabilitation programme, with input from patients, could contribute to improving patient outcomes following cancer treatments.

Acceptability of prehabilitation for cancer surgery: a multi-perspective qualitative investigation of patient and 'clinician' experiences

BACKGROUND

'Prehabilitation' interventions aim to enhance individuals' physical fitness prior to cancer treatment, typically involve exercise training as a key component, and may continue to support physical activity, strength, and fitness during or after treatment. However, uptake of prehabilitation is variable. This study investigated how patients from diverse socio-economic status groups perceived an exemplar prehabilitation and recovery programme, aiming to understand factors impacting acceptability, engagement and referral.

METHODS

This research was conducted in the context of the Prehab4Cancer and Recovery Programme, a prehabilitation and recovery programme available across Greater Manchester, UK. Qualitative, semi-structured phone/video-call interviews were conducted with 18 adult patient participants referred to the programme (16 'engagers', 2 'non-engagers'; half the sample lived in localities with low socio-economic status scores). An online questionnaire with free-response and categorical-response questions was completed by 24 'clinician' participants involved in referral (nurses, doctors and other staff roles). An inductive, multi-perspective, thematic analysis was performed, structured using the Framework approach.

RESULTS

Discussing and referring patients to prehabilitation can be challenging due to large quantities of information for staff to cover, and for patients to absorb, around the time of diagnosis. The programme was highly valued by both participant groups; the belief that participation would improve recovery seemed a major motivator for engagement, and some 'clinicians' felt that prehabilitation should be treated as a routine part of treatment, or extended to support other patient groups. Engagers seemed to appreciate a supportive approach where they did not feel forced to do any activity and tailoring of the programme to meet individual needs and abilities was appreciated. Initial engagement could be daunting, but gaining experience with the programme seemed to increase confidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The prehabilitation programme was highly valued by engagers. Introducing prehabilitation at a challenging time means that personalised approaches might be needed to support engagement, or participation could be encouraged at a later time. Strategies to support individuals lacking in confidence, such as buddying, may be valuable.

STUDY REGISTRATION

The study protocol was uploaded onto the Open Science Framework 24 September 2020 ( https://osf.io/347qj/ ).

What moves patients to participate in prehabilitation before major surgery? A mixed methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation offers patients the opportunity to actively participate in their perioperative care by preparing themselves for their upcoming surgery. Experiencing barriers may lead to non-participation, which can result in a reduced functional capacity, delayed post-operative recovery and higher healthcare costs. Insight in the barriers and facilitators to participation in prehabilitation can inform further development and implementation of prehabilitation. The aim of this review was to identify patient-experienced barriers and facilitators for participation in prehabilitation.

METHODS

For this mixed methods systematic review, articles were searched in PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they contained data on patient-reported barriers and facilitators to participation in prehabilitation in adults undergoing major surgery. Following database search, and title and abstract screening, full text articles were screened for eligibility and quality was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Relevant data from the included studies were extracted, coded and categorized into themes, using an inductive approach. Based on these themes, the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour (COM-B) model was chosen to classify the identified themes.

RESULTS

Three quantitative, 14 qualitative and 6 mixed methods studies, published between 2007 and 2022, were included in this review. A multitude of factors were identified across the different COM-B components. Barriers included lack of knowledge of the benefits of prehabilitation and not prioritizing prehabilitation over other commitments (psychological capability), physical symptoms and comorbidities (physical capability), lack of time and limited financial capacity (physical opportunity), lack of social support (social opportunity), anxiety and stress (automatic motivation) and previous experiences and feeling too fit for prehabilitation (reflective motivation). Facilitators included knowledge of the benefits of prehabilitation (psychological capability), having access to resources (physical opportunity), social support and encouragement by a health care professional (social support), feeling a sense of control (automatic motivation) and beliefs in own abilities (reflective motivation).

CONCLUSIONS

A large number of barriers and facilitators, influencing participation in prehabilitation, were found across all six COM-B components. To reach all patients and to tailor prehabilitation to the patient's needs and preferences, it is important to take into account patients' capability, opportunity and motivation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021250273) on May 18th, 2021.