Feasibility of a virtual multimodal prehabilitation intervention for patients with cancer undergoing surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Current prehabilitation programs are often limited by poor recruitment and attrition rates. Remote delivery of prehabilitation may reduce barriers to participation and maximize program retention. We aimed to assess the feasibility (uptake, retention, fidelity), preliminary effectiveness, and acceptability of delivering a technology-supported prehabilitation program remotely to oncologic surgical candidates. METHODS: This was a one-arm pragmatic feasibility study aiming to follow patients for 4-6 weeks preoperatively and 8 weeks postoperatively. All patients received a home-based aerobic and resistance exercise program, with psychosocial counselling as needed. Those at risk of malnutrition received nutritional counselling and supplements to meet personalized energy and protein targets. Adherence was assessed using an exercise watch and a mobile application for dietary assessment. In addition, we assessed physical effects, with change in 6-min walking distance of 20m defined as clinically meaningful recovery, and post-operative complications. Acceptability was assessed using a convergence mixed-methods approach. RESULTS: A total of 28 participants were included (median 69, IQR 9.5 years; 12/28, 43 % males). Rate of recruitment was 47 %, retention was 78 %, and attendance was 86-93 %. Participants walked an average of 8168 (SD: 4685) steps per day preoperatively and 6809 (SD: 4819) steps per day postoperatively. They consumed on average 21.6 kcal/kg of ideal body weight (IBW) and 1.1 g protein/kg IBW during the first week of the intervention. Participants demonstrated significant improvements in remote physical tests before surgery (arm strength: +9.7 [5.7, 13.6] repetitions in arm curl, p < 0.001; leg strength: +3.2 [1.4, 4.9] sit-to-stand repetitions in 30 s, p = 0.001; endurance: +19.4 [12.7, 26.1] repetitions in the 2-min step test, p < 0.001). The majority (16/22, 73 %) achieved clinically meaningful recovery at 8 weeks postoperatively. All participants attested to the acceptability of exercising with remote supervision. CONCLUSION: A technology-assisted prehabilitation program delivered remotely is feasible and could lead to physical benefits for a surgical cancer population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".