Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42459925›Full record

ArticleAnaesthesia reports

Improving equity in prehabilitation before cancer surgery: consensus-based considerations for leaders and practitioners: a nominal group technique study.

X Zhang, L Ashmore, C Hadley, C Kullikowski, S Stanley, H Stewart, L Wareing, C Gaffney, A Partridge, A Smith and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anaesthesia reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

X ZhangLancaster Medical School Lancaster University Lancaster UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2660-3937
L AshmoreLancaster Medical School Lancaster University Lancaster UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3870-8189
C HadleyLancaster Medical School Lancaster University Lancaster UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3415-1678
C KullikowskiLancaster Medical School Lancaster University Lancaster UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9092-4982
S StanleyLancaster Medical School Lancaster University Lancaster UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0031-2368
H StewartLancaster Medical School Lancaster University Lancaster UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6893-4094
L WareingLancaster Medical School Lancaster University Lancaster UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3435-1346
C GaffneyLancaster Medical School Lancaster University Lancaster UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7990-2792
A PartridgePatient Co-Investigator Lancaster UK.
A SmithDepartment of Anaesthesia, Royal Lancaster Infirmary University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust Lancaster UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2650-9764
J Rycroft MaloneFaculty of Health and Medicine Lancaster University Lancaster UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3858-5625
C SheltonLancaster Medical School Lancaster University Lancaster UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8438-398X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prehabilitation aims to improve physical, nutritional and psychological health before surgery. Despite its potential benefits, inequitable access remains a concern. The wider PARITY study aimed to identify and help address inequalities in prehabilitation before cancer surgery using a mixed-methods approach. This report describes the end-of-study prioritisation workshop, which brought together professional, public and patient participants to prioritise considerations to promote equity in prehabilitation services using a nominal group technique. Before the workshop, 42 considerations identified from preceding work, including co-design, Delphi, service mapping and case studies, were shared with participants for review. Participants (n = 15) discussed and prioritised these considerations according to perceived impact and feasibility of implementation. Considerations were ranked by perceived priority and categorised by level of implementation. Forty-two considerations were prioritised and categorised as system level (n = 15), service level (n = 22) and practitioner level (n = 5). The six highest-priority considerations relate to: understanding how prehabilitation and surgery may affect each patient's life; adapting delivery to individual needs; making services available at a system-wide level; contacting patients who are not engaging; providing interpreters where needed; and training care teams in equality and diversity issues. These findings provide consensus-based considerations to support more equitable prehabilitation before cancer surgery, at a time when prehabilitation is increasingly prominent in national guidance.

Indexed as

consensus workshopequitygood practice considerationsnominal group techniqueprehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID42459925
PMCPMC13369003

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.