Tools
Tools
Barman, S, Walker, RC, Pucher, PP, Jack, S, Whyte, G, Grocott, M, West, M, Maynard, N, Underwood, T, Gossage, J, Davies, A and OG Prehabilitation Group and AUGIS (Association of Upper GI Surg, (2024) A national survey of the provision of prehabilitation for oesophagogastric cancer patients in the UK. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. ISSN 0035-8843
|
Text
barman-et-al-2024-a-national-survey-of-the-provision-of-prehabilitation-for-oesophagogastric-cancer-patients-in-the-uk.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (395kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Introduction Studies have demonstrated that prehabilitation in oesophagogastric cancer (OGC) improves body composition, physical fitness and quality of life, and can reduce surgical complications. However, it is not offered in all OGC centres. Furthermore, definitions, funding and access to services vary. We conducted a survey of prehabilitation in OGC centres in England and Wales. Methods OGC centres were identified through the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit (NOGCA). Survey questions were developed, piloted in two institutions and distributed via email in October 2022. Reminder emails were sent over two months until the survey closed in December 2022. Results Responses were received from 28 of 36 centres. There was near-universal agreement that prehabilitation should be considered standard of care for patients on curative pathways (27/28; 96%). Most centres (21/28; 75%) offered prehabilitation. The majority of respondents believed that prehabilitation should commence at diagnosis (27/28; 96%) and consist of at least aerobic training and dietitian input. Most (26/28; 93%) believed access to clinical psychologists should be included; however, only 12 (43%) had access to clinical psychologists. Respondents believed prehabilitation improves quality of life (26/28; 93%), fitness (26/28; 93%), smoking cessation (28/28; 100%), surgical complication rates (25/28; 89.3%), likelihood of proceeding to surgery (25/28; 89.3%) and overall survival (20/28; 71.4%). Conclusions Despite barriers to funding and a lack of best practice guidelines, most units deliver prehabilitation. Units require higher quality evidence, consensus on the most important aspects of the intervention and core outcome sets to support the delivery of services and facilitate audit to assess the impact of their introduction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | OG Prehabilitation Group and AUGIS (Association of Upper GI Surgeons); OGC centres; Oesophagogastric cancer; Prehabilitation; Survey; 32 Biomedical and Clinical Sciences; 3202 Clinical Sciences; 3203 Dentistry; Prevention; Cancer; 8.1 Organisation and delivery of services; Cancer; 1103 Clinical Sciences; Surgery; 3202 Clinical sciences; 3203 Dentistry |
| Subjects: | R Medicine > RC Internal medicine > RC0254 Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology (including Cancer) R Medicine > RC Internal medicine > RC1200 Sports Medicine |
| Divisions: | Sport and Exercise Sciences |
| Publisher: | Royal College of Surgeons of England |
| SWORD Depositor: | A Symplectic |
| Date Deposited: | 12 Mar 2025 10:28 |
| Last Modified: | 12 Mar 2025 10:30 |
| DOI or ID number: | 10.1308/rcsann.2024.0092 |
| URI: | https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/25856 |
 |
View Item |