Exploring Consumers' Motivations and Experiences of Engaging as Partners in Cancer Research.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Consumer engagement improves research quality and relevance but can be difficult to implement. This study aimed to explore the motivations and understand the barriers, if any, experienced by consumers before and when partnering with cancer research teams. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with consumers and the results analysed thematically. Two groups were recruited: consumers who were members of the consumer registry and patients who did not have previous experience of being a consumer in a researcher partnership. RESULTS: Twenty-one interviews were conducted with a total of 22 participants aged between 26 and 74 years. Consumers motivation was driven by altruism to help others and personal benefits. Barriers to beginning and maintaining consumer engagement included consumers' perceptions of being appreciated by researchers and meaningful communication between researchers and consumers. CONCLUSIONS: Australian policy has made important steps towards consumer engagement in research. This study showed that demonstrating an appreciation for consumers and effective communication are key areas to consider when designing implementation strategies of these policies in the cancer research space in the future.

Prehabilitation in high-risk patients scheduled for major abdominal cancer surgery: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting for major surgery with low cardiorespiratory fitness (deconditioning) and other modifiable risk factors are at increased risk of postoperative complications. This study investigated the feasibility of delivering prehabilitation in high-risk patients scheduled for major abdominal cancer surgery. METHODS: Eligible patients in this single-center cohort study included patients with poor fitness (objectively assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise testing, CPET) scheduled for elective major abdominal cancer surgery. Patients were recruited to participate in a prehabilitation program that spanned up to 6 weeks pre-operatively and comprised aerobic and resistance exercise training, breathing exercise, and nutritional support. The primary outcome assessed pre-specified feasibility targets: recruitment >70%, retention >85%, and intervention adherence >70%. Secondary outcomes were assessed for improved pre-operative functional status and health-related quality of life and for postoperative complications. RESULTS: Eighty-two (34%) out of 238 patients screened between April 2018 and December 2019 were eligible for recruitment. Fifty (61%) patients (52% males) with a median age of 71 (IQR, 63-77) years participated in the study. Baseline oxygen consumption the at anaerobic threshold and at peak exercise (mean±SD: 9.8±1.8 and 14.0±2.9 mL/kg/min, respectively) confirmed the deconditioned state of the study cohort. The retention rate within the prehabilitation program was 84%, with 42 participants returning for repeat CPET testing. While >60% of participants preferred to do home-based prehabilitation, adherence to the intervention was low-with only 12 (28%) and 15 (35%) of patients having self-reported compliance >70% with their exercise prescriptions. CONCLUSION: Our prehabilitation program in high-risk cancer surgery patients did not achieve pre-specified targets for recruitment, retention, and self-reported program adherence. These findings underpin the importance of implementation research and strategies for the prehabilitation programs in major surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12620000073909 ) retrospectively registered.

Implementing a telehealth prehabilitation education session for patients preparing for major cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Prehabilitation services assist patients in preparing for surgery, yet access to these services are often limited by geographical factors. Enabling rural and regional patients to access specialist surgical prehabilitation support with the use of telehealth technology has the potential to overcome health inequities and improve post-operative outcomes. AIM: To evaluate the current and likely future impact of a telehealth preoperative education package for patients preparing for major abdominal cancer surgery. METHODS: A telehealth alternative to a hospital based pre-operative education session was developed and implemented at a dedicated cancer hospital. Adult patients (≥18 years) scheduled for elective major cancer surgery were offered this telehealth alternative. Impact evaluation was conducted using the RE-AIM framework. RESULTS: To date, 35 participants have consented to participate in the study. Thirty-one participants attended the intervention; 24 (69%) residing in rural or regional areas. Twenty-four (77%) reported that if given a choice they would prefer the online session as opposed to attending the hospital in person. The majority (97%) reported they would recommend the intervention to others preparing for surgery. Session information was recalled by all 26 participants and 77% of participants reported acting on recommendations 2 weeks after the session. Lessons learnt and recommendations for providers implementing similar programs are reported. CONCLUSION: Telehealth alternatives to hospital based pre-operative education are well received by patients preparing for major cancer surgery. We make seven recommendations to improve implementation. Further evaluation of implementation strategies alongside clinical effectiveness in future studies is essential. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12620000096954 , 04/02/2020.

Efficacy of Prehabilitation Including Exercise on Postoperative Outcomes Following Abdominal Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

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.

Patient acceptance of prehabilitation for major surgery: an exploratory survey.

PURPOSE: Prehabilitation programs are effective in optimising patient's functional reserve prior to surgery and increasingly associated with reduced postoperative complications. However, acceptability of programs among patients is largely unknown. This study set out to explore the acceptability of prehabilitation from the perspective of patients awaiting major cancer surgery. METHODS: Adult patients awaiting major gastrointestinal and urological cancer surgeries were surveyed. Patients were excluded if they were unable to complete the survey due to language, intellectual impairment and/or visual/hearing deficit. The survey was designed to explore categories related to patient demographics, level of physical activity and perceived enablers and barriers to prehabilitation. RESULTS: One hundred and three participants presenting to a pre-anaesthesia clinic completed the survey over a 5-month period, with 83% response rate. Approximately, half of the respondents were female (55%) and were currently physically active (53%). Fewer than one third (30%) felt they completed 'enough exercise'. The majority of participants (83%) were unfamiliar with the concept of prehabilitation but two thirds (68%) were interested in such a program after explanation. The majority of participants (72%) indicated a strong preference to exercise in a home-based environment. Medical recommendation increased willingness to participate (p < 0.001), while program costs (p = 0.01) were potential barriers to participation. CONCLUSION: Patients are willing to participate in prehabilitation prior to major cancer surgery but practical barriers and facilitators should be considered when designing prehabilitation programs to maximise patient commitment to facilitate improved postoperative outcomes.

'Probably better than any medication we can give you': General practitioners' views on exercise and nutrition in cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Exercise and healthy eating patterns are effective in improving health-related quality of life for patients with cancer. However, little is known about general practitioners' (GPs') views and experiences regarding providing exercise and nutrition recommendations to their patients with cancer. The aim of this study was to 1) report GPs' experiences of providing nutrition and exercise advice to their patients and 2) identify perceived barriers and enablers to implementation of exercise and nutrition advice throughout the cancer journey from the GP perspective. METHOD: Twenty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted, and transcripts coded by two independent researchers. A thematic analysis was performed to derive main themes. RESULTS: Four main themes were identified: the importance of exercise and nutrition recommendations for patients with cancer, the influence of the patient agenda, the influence of additional training or personal interest of the GP, and limitations of the primary care setting. DISCUSSION: Increased communication between primary and tertiary care, availability of resources, professional development opportunities and access to allied health services is needed to further support GPs to deliver exercise and nutrition information to their patients with cancer. This study provides evidence of GPs' desire to be involved in supporting the healthy exercise and nutrition habits of their patients with cancer and presents avenues for future research and resource development.

Socioeconomic Position and Health Outcomes Following Critical Illness: A Systematic Review.

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.