Surgery school-who, what, when, and how: results of a national survey of multidisciplinary teams delivering group preoperative education.

BACKGROUND: Group education is increasing in popularity as a means of preparing patients for surgery. In recent years, these 'surgery schools' have evolved from primarily informing patients of what to expect before and after surgery, to providing support and encouragement for patients to 'prehabilitate' prior to surgery, through improving physical fitness, nutrition and emotional wellbeing. METHOD: A survey aimed at clinicians delivering surgery schools was employed to capture a national overview of activity to establish research and practice priorities in this area. The survey was circulated online via the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery UK Society and the Centre for Perioperative Care mailing lists as well as social media. RESULTS: There were 80 responses describing 28 active and 4 planned surgery schools across the UK and Ireland. Schools were designed and delivered by multidisciplinary teams, contained broadly similar content and were well attended. Most were funded by the National Health Service. The majority included aspects of prehabilitation most commonly the importance of physical fitness. Seventy five percent of teams collected patient outcome data, but less than half collected data to establish the clinical effectiveness of the school. Few describe explicit inclusion of evidence-based behavior change techniques, but collaboration and partnerships with community teams, gyms and local charities were considered important in supporting patients to make changes in health behaviors prior to surgery. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that teams work with patients when designing surgery schools and use evidence-based behavior change frameworks and techniques to inform their content. There is a need for high-quality research studies to determine the clinical effectiveness of this type of education intervention.

Development and evaluation of a novel pre-operative surgery school and behavioural change intervention for patients undergoing elective major surgery: Fit-4-Surgery School.

Group pre-operative education has usually been limited to conditioning expectations and providing education. Prehabilitation has highlighted modifiable lifestyle factors that are amenable to change and may improve clinical outcomes. We instituted a pre-operative 'Fit-4-Surgery School' for patients scheduled for major surgery, to educate and promote healthy behaviour. We evaluated patients' views having attended the school, and after surgery we asked how it had changed their behaviour with a lifestyle questionnaire. The school was launched in May 2016 and was attended by 586/1017 (58%) of invited patients. Patients who did not attend: lived further away, median (IQR [range]) 8 (4-19 [0-123]) miles vs. 5 (3-14 [0-172]) miles, p < 0.001; and were more deprived, Index of Multiple Deprivation Rank decile median (IQR [range]), 6 (4-8 [1-10]) vs. 7 (4-9 [1-10]), p = 0.04. Of the 492/586 (84%) participants who completed an evaluation questionnaire, 462 (94%) would recommend the school to a friend having surgery and 296 (60%) planned lifestyle changes. After surgery, 232/586 (40%) completed a behavioural change questionnaire, 106 (46%) of whom reported changing at least one lifestyle factor, most commonly by increasing exercise. The pre-operative school was acceptable to patients.

Psychological factors, prehabilitation and surgical outcomes: evidence and future directions.

The pre-operative optimisation of comorbidities is increasingly recognised as an important element of the pre-operative pathway. These efforts have primarily focused on physical comorbidities such as anaemia and the optimisation of exercise and nutrition. However, there is a growing recognition of the importance of psychological morbidity. Increasingly, evidence suggests that psychological factors have an impact on surgical outcomes in both the short and long term. Pre-operative anxiety, depression and low self-efficacy are consistently associated with worse physiological surgical outcomes and postoperative quality of life. This has led to the emergence of psychological prehabilitation and the trimodal approach to prehabilitation, incorporating psychological intervention as well as exercise and nutritional optimisation. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to be sure that pre-operative psychological interventions are of benefit, or which interventions are most effective, because their impact has been mixed. There is an urgent need for high quality, contemporaneous prospective trials with baseline psychological evaluation, well-described interventions and agreement on the most appropriate psychological, quality of life and physiological outcomes measures.

Perceived barriers and benefits to physical activity in colorectal cancer patients.

PURPOSE: There is emerging evidence for the benefits of physical activity (PA) post-diagnosis for colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. However, population studies suggest activity levels in these patients are very low. Understanding perceived barriers and benefits to activity is a crucial step in designing effective interventions. METHODS: Patients who were between 6 months and 5 years post-diagnosis with non-metastasised disease were identified from five London (UK) hospitals. Four hundred and ninety five completed a lifestyle survey that included open-ended questions on their perceived barriers (what things would stop you from doing more physical activity?) and benefits (what do you think you would gain from doing more physical activity?). Patients also recorded their activity levels using the Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire, along with sociodemographic and treatment variables. RESULTS: The most commonly reported barriers related to cancer and its treatments (e.g. fatigue). Age and mobility-related comorbidities (e.g. impaired mobility) were also frequently cited. Those who reported age and mobility as barriers, or reported any barrier, were significantly less active even after adjustment for multiple confounders. The most frequently reported benefits were physiological (e.g. improving health and fitness). Cancer-related benefits (such as prevention of recurrence) were rarely reported. Those perceiving physiological benefits or perceiving any benefits were more active in unadjusted models, but associations were not significant in adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified important barriers and facilitators in CRC survivors that will aid in the design of theory-based PA interventions.

Managing fatigue after cancer treatment: development of RESTORE, a web-based resource to support self-management.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to co-create an evidence-based and theoretically informed web-based intervention (RESTORE) designed to enhance self-efficacy to live with cancer-related fatigue (CRF) following primary cancer treatment. METHODS: A nine-step process informed the development of the intervention: (1) review of empirical literature; (2) review of existing patient resources; (3) establish theoretical framework; (4) establish design team with expertise in web-based interventions, CRF and people affected by cancer; (5) develop prototype intervention; (6) user testing phase 1; (7) refinement of prototype; (8) user testing phase 2; and (9) develop final intervention. RESULTS: Key stakeholders made a critical contribution at every step of intervention development, and user testing, which involved an iterative process and resulted in the final intervention. The RESTORE intervention has five sessions; sessions 1 and 2 include an introduction to CRF and goal setting. Sessions 3-5 can be tailored to user preference and are designed to cover areas of life where CRF may have an impact: home and work life, personal relationships and emotional adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to systematically 'co-create' an evidence-based and theory-driven web-based self-management intervention to support cancer survivors living with the consequences of cancer and its treatment. This is the first account of the development of a web-based intervention to support self-efficacy to manage CRF. An exploratory trial to test the feasibility and acceptability of RESTORE is now warranted.

Cancer survivors' self-efficacy to self-manage in the year following primary treatment.

PURPOSE: Cancer survivors are increasingly expected to manage the consequences of cancer and its treatment for themselves. There is evidence that self-efficacy is important for successful self-management and that this can be enhanced with support. The purpose of this study was to assess self-efficacy to manage problems in the year following primary treatment. METHODS: This cross-sectional online survey included cancer survivors who had completed their treatment within the past 12 months. Self-efficacy was assessed and variables expected to be associated with self-efficacy were measured using validated scales including quality of life, well-being, illness perceptions, depression and social support. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-two respondents (mean age 50; 81% female) completed the survey. They had been treated for a range of cancers; most commonly breast (45%). Self-efficacy scores varied between individuals and according to the illness-related task to be managed. Respondents were least confident in managing fatigue and most confident in accessing information about their cancer. Individuals most likely to report low self-efficacy were women, those experiencing higher levels of pain and/or depression, lower well-being scores, lower socio-economic status, low levels of social support, or a more negative perception of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Self-efficacy to self-manage problems faced as a consequence of cancer and its treatment can vary widely in the year following treatment. Fatigue may be particularly difficult to manage. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Variations in self-efficacy highlight the importance of assessing specific problems faced and people's confidence to manage them in order to tailor appropriate self-management support.

The effects of exercise upon symptoms and quality of life in patients diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome: a randomised controlled trial.

While it seems intuitively appealing to promote participation in regular exercise in the management of irritable bowel syndrome, limited randomised controlled trial evidence exists to support this recommendation. We examined the feasibility and effects of an exercise intervention upon quality of life and irritable bowel symptoms using a randomised controlled trial methodology. Patients with a clinically confirmed diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome according to Rome II criteria were randomised to either an exercise consultation intervention or usual care for 12 weeks. Outcomes included irritable bowel specific quality of life, symptoms (total symptoms, constipation, diarrhoea and pain) and exercise participation. The recruitment rate of eligible patients identified from hospital records was 18.3% (56/305). Analyses revealed no differences in quality life scores between groups at 12-week follow-up. The exercise group reported significantly improved symptoms of constipation (mean difference=10.9, 95 % CI= -20.1, -1.6) compared to usual care at follow-up. The intervention group participated in significantly more exercise than usual care at follow-up (mean difference=21.6, 95% CI=9.4, 33.8). Recruitment of eligible patients into this study was possible but rates were low. Findings highlight the possibility that exercise may be an effective intervention for symptom management in patients with irritable bowel syndrome; this may be particularly the case for constipation predominant patients.