Preparing for colorectal surgery: a feasibility study of a novel web‐based multimodal prehabilitation programme in Western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Prehabilitation for colorectal cancer has focused on exercise-based interventions that are typically designed by clinicians; however, no research has yet been patient-oriented. The aim of this feasibility study was to test a web-based multimodal prehabilitation intervention (known as PREP prehab) consisting of four components (physical activity, diet, smoking cessation, psychological support) co-designed with five patient partners. METHOD: A longitudinal, two-armed (website without or with coaching support) feasibility study of 33 patients scheduled for colorectal surgery 2 weeks or more from consent (January-September 2021) in the province of British Columbia, Canada. Descriptive statistics analysed a health-related quality of life questionnaire (EQ5D-5L) at baseline (n = 25) and 3 months postsurgery (n = 21), and a follow-up patient satisfaction survey to determine the acceptability, practicality, demand for and potential efficacy in improving overall health. RESULTS: ). Only six patients received a Subjective Global Assessment for being at risk for malnutrition, with three classified as 'severely/moderately' malnourished. The majority (86%) of patients intended to use the prehabilitation website, and nearly three-quarters (71%) visited the website while waiting for surgery. The majority (76%) reported that information, tools and resources provided appropriate support, and 76% indicated they would recommend the PREP prehab programme. About three-quarters (76%) reported setting goals for lifestyle modification: 86% set healthy eating goals, 81% aimed to stay active and 57% sought to reduce stress once a week or more. No patients contacted the team to obtain health coaching, despite broad interest (71%) in receiving active support and 14% reporting they received 'active support'. CONCLUSION: This web-based multimodal prehabilitation programme was acceptable, practical and well-received by all colorectal surgery patients who viewed the patient-oriented multimodal website. The feasibility of providing active health coaching support requires further investigation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".