RESUMO
Purpose of Review: Robots are increasingly being adopted in healthcare to carry out various tasks that enhance patient care. This scoping review aims to establish the types of robots being used in healthcare and identify where they are deployed. Recent Findings: Technological advancements have enabled robots to conduct increasingly varied and complex roles in healthcare. For instance, precision tasks such as improving dexterity following stroke or assisting with percutaneous coronary intervention. Summary: This review found that robots have played 10 main roles across a variety of clinical environments. The two predominant roles were surgical and rehabilitation and mobility. Although robots were mainly studied in the surgical theatre and rehabilitation unit, other settings ranged from the hospital ward to inpatient pharmacy. Healthcare needs are constantly evolving, as demonstrated by COVID-19, and robots may assist in adapting to these changes. The future will involve increased telepresence and infrastructure systems will have to improve to allow for this. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43154-022-00095-4.
RESUMO
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.
