ArticleBMC women's health2025
'I was eager to do anything I could to improve the situation': a qualitative study of patients' experiences and views of prehabilitation for ovarian cancer surgery.
Article in BMC women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prehabilitation for cancer surgery: a systematic review of qualitative literature from experienced stakeholders.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Psychological, social, and behavioral barriers and facilitators to prehabilitation before cancer surgery: a qualitative systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Patient perspectives of multimodal prehabilitation for ovarian cancer with surgical intent: a multicentre qualitative evaluation of acceptability, barriers and facilitators for participation.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Northern Ireland ovarian cancer prehabilitation project.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrehabilitation has shown promise in improving post-operative outcomes for several solid tumour groups. However, prehabilitation programmes are not widely established. Patients with advanced ovarian cancer experience life changing debulking surgery and could benefit from prehabilitation. This study aims to explore the views, experiences, facilitators and barriers surrounding prehabilitation in a demographically diverse cohort of advanced ovarian cancer patients. This would help to inform an acceptable patient-centred working programme model for a diverse group of patients.
methodsPurposive, maximum variation sampling was used to recruit a diverse sample of women, due to undergo or following primary debulking surgery for advanced ovarian cancer, from two cancer centres in London. Semi-structured interviews were either conducted face to face or by telephone. All recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.
resultsTwenty-one participants were interviewed. Twelve were prehabilitation 'naïve' and nine had participated in the Marsden Integrated Lifestyle and Exercise programme (MILE). The age range was 46-76 years and 8/21 participants were of Black, Asian or Mixed heritage. Factors influencing engagement with prehabilitation can be categorised under four major emerging themes [1] Mindset [2] Actual preparation [3] Support system [4] Delivery of prehabilitation.
conclusionPatients with ovarian cancer welcome the concept of prehabilitation, however a blanket approach is not suitable to meet the needs of a demographically diverse cohort. The components of prehabilitation must be tailored to individual needs, with attention to existing mindset and support systems, building on preparations that women are already making for surgery and offering flexible delivery options.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.