A Qualitative Study of Patient and Healthcare Provider Perspectives on Building Multiphasic Exercise Prehabilitation into the Surgical Care Pathway for Head and Neck Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Head and neck cancer (HNC) surgical patients experience a high symptom burden. Multiphasic exercise prehabilitation has the potential to improve patient outcomes, and to implement it into the care pathway, the perspectives of patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) must be considered. The purpose of this study was thus to gather feedback from HNC surgical patients and HCPs on building exercise into the standard HNC surgical care pathway. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients and HCPs as part of a feasibility study assessing patient-reported outcomes, physical function, and in-hospital mobilization. Interview questions included satisfaction with study recruitment, assessment completion, impact on clinical workflow (HCPs), and perceptions of a future multiphasic exercise prehabilitation program. This study followed an interpretive description methodology. Results: Ten patients and ten HCPs participated in this study. Four themes were identified: (1) acceptability and necessity of assessments, (2) the value of exercise, (3) the components of an ideal exercise program, and (4) factors to support implementation. Conclusion: These findings highlight the value of exercise across the HNC surgical timeline from both the patient and the HCP perspective. Results have informed the implementation of a multiphasic exercise prehabilitation trial in HNC surgical patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".