Exploring the acceptability of and adherence to prehabilitation and rehabilitation in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims Prehabilitation combines exercise, nutritional, and psychological interventions administered before surgery to improve patient outcomes. This comprehensive review and meta-analysis examined the feasibility, adherence, and effectiveness of prehabilitation in frail, high-risk individuals undergoing major abdominal surgery. Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases to identify relevant studies evaluating prehabilitation programs published between 2010 and 2023, either as observational studies or randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Results The 23 articles (13 RCTs and 10 observational studies) included 1849 older male and female patients aged 68.7 ± 7.2 years. Nineteen of the included studies reported on adherence to prehabilitation programmes, which was generally good (>75%) over different models, settings, and durations. Factors such as patients' desire for expedited surgery, self-assessment of fitness, personal and professional obligations, health issues, holidays, and advancement of surgery dates negatively affected adherence to prehabilitation programmes. When compared with rehabilitation or standard pre- and post-surgical care, prehabilitation was associated with a 25%, albeit not statistically significant reduction in postoperative complications, according to data from 14 studies reporting on postoperative complications (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.17, P = 0.43; I 2 = 65%). Prehabilitation has been found to improve the 6-min walk test significantly by 29.4 m (MD +29.4 m, 95% CI 5.6 to 53.3, P = 0.02; I 2 = 39%), compared with rehabilitation or standard pre- and post-surgical care. Conclusion Prehabilitation was acceptable to patients, with good adherence, and improved physical function.
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 | 0.022 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".