Defining Criteria for Quality and Equity in Prehabilitation Services Before Cancer Surgery: A Delphi Study Informed by Lived and Professional Experience

Background: Prehabilitation before cancer surgery has been recommended for implementation in clinical practice to improve patients’ functional and psychological wellbeing to improve outcomes. Currently, in the United Kingdom, cancer prehabilitation interventions vary in how and where they are offered, potentially widening health inequalities and little is known about patient preferences. This first of a kind study aimed to invite both people with lived experience of cancer and healthcare professionals to define a set of criteria for quality and equitable prehabilitation interventions for cancer treatment. Methods: A modified Delphi technique was implemented over three rounds of online questionnaires with prehabilitation professionals (experts by profession, n = 8) and people with lived experience of cancer (experts by experience, n = 14) in the United Kingdom. The first round of criteria statements was developed in a series of co‐design workshops. In each Delphi round, participants were asked to rank the statements on a 5‐point Likert scale and make suggestions for refinement or additional statements. Consensus was defined as at least 75% of participants voting to indicate agreement on each statement. Results: A total of 22 participants voted in Delphi questionnaire with a 76% response rate. 63.6% of participants were ‘experts by experience’ and 36.4% were ‘experts by profession’. The questionnaire started with 54 statements and through three rounds of voting, refinement and addition, 56 statements reached consensus. Over three rounds, six statements did not reach consensus. Criteria were grouped into seven themes: developing and delivering prehabilitation (covering prehabilitation definitions, safety and evaluation processes and interactions with patients), emotional health, nutritional, physical and multimodal interventions, integrating community-based care and addressing inequalities . Conclusions: This is the first research to develop a set of criteria for evaluating and designing equitable prehabilitation before cancer surgery in the United Kingdom. The results will be of interest to researchers, healthcare professionals and service providers interested in designing, evaluating and delivering prehabilitation before cancer surgery.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Journal of Cancer Care
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1155/ecc/9308284
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Delphi Technique in Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.20

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Defining Criteria for Quality and Equity in Prehabilitation Services Before Cancer Surgery: A Delphi Study Informed by Lived and Professional Experience

Cliff Shelton, Jo Rycroft‐Malone, Lisa Ashmore, Ann H. Partridge et al.
1 citations
European Journal of Cancer Care
Delphi Technique in Research
4.20
article

Defining Criteria for Quality and Equity in Prehabilitation Services Before Cancer Surgery: A Delphi Study Informed by Lived and Professional Experience

Cliff Shelton, Jo Rycroft‐Malone, Lisa Ashmore, Ann H. Partridge, Andrew F Smith, Christopher Gaffney, Yasemin Hirst, Laura Wareing
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Background: Prehabilitation before cancer surgery has been recommended for implementation in clinical practice to improve patients’ functional and psychological wellbeing to improve outcomes. Currently, in the United Kingdom, cancer prehabilitation interventions vary in how and where they are offered, potentially widening health inequalities and little is known about patient preferences. This first of a kind study aimed to invite both people with lived experience of cancer and healthcare professionals to define a set of criteria for quality and equitable prehabilitation interventions for cancer treatment. Methods: A modified Delphi technique was implemented over three rounds of online questionnaires with prehabilitation professionals (experts by profession, n = 8) and people with lived experience of cancer (experts by experience, n = 14) in the United Kingdom. The first round of criteria statements was developed in a series of co‐design workshops. In each Delphi round, participants were asked to rank the statements on a 5‐point Likert scale and make suggestions for refinement or additional statements. Consensus was defined as at least 75% of participants voting to indicate agreement on each statement. Results: A total of 22 participants voted in Delphi questionnaire with a 76% response rate. 63.6% of participants were ‘experts by experience’ and 36.4% were ‘experts by profession’. The questionnaire started with 54 statements and through three rounds of voting, refinement and addition, 56 statements reached consensus. Over three rounds, six statements did not reach consensus. Criteria were grouped into seven themes: developing and delivering prehabilitation (covering prehabilitation definitions, safety and evaluation processes and interactions with patients), emotional health, nutritional, physical and multimodal interventions, integrating community-based care and addressing inequalities . Conclusions: This is the first research to develop a set of criteria for evaluating and designing equitable prehabilitation before cancer surgery in the United Kingdom. The results will be of interest to researchers, healthcare professionals and service providers interested in designing, evaluating and delivering prehabilitation before cancer surgery.

European Journal of Cancer CareVol. 2025(1)
University of Lancashire (GB), Royal Lancaster Infirmary (GB), Lancaster University (GB)
National Institute for Health and Care Research, Department of Health and Social Care, Health Services and Delivery Research Programme
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Delphi Technique in Research
4.20
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.