Effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Undergoing major surgery can induce physical and functional decline. Prehabilitation programmes aim to improve physical fitness and function preoperatively and could enhance postoperative recovery and outcomes. Prehabilitation interventions have been utilised across a range of orthopaedic populations of all ages and can be multimodal in nature. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery including day surgery procedures. It will also investigate the components of prehabilitation to understand optimum duration and frequency of programmes. METHODS/DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis designed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. A comprehensive electronic search will be performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, Embase, PEDro and Cochrane CENTRAL databases in order to identify randomised control trials published between January 2000 to 25 March 2019. ISI Web of Science, System for information on grey literature and the European Union clinical trials registry will identify studies that are underway or unpublished. Two independent reviewers will carry out the searches, study selection (title and abstract and full text stages), data extraction, risk of bias assessment (Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0) and evaluation of overall strength of evidence. Meta-analyses will be used for data which demonstrates homogeneity, otherwise a narrative synthesis will be performed for groups of studies of high heterogeneity (I2 >50%). The overall strength of the body of evidence will be assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study raises no ethical issues. This study aims to identify the effectiveness of prehabilitation interventions and may assist clinicians in determining which components, duration, frequency and the method of delivery would form the most effective prehabilitation intervention for patients undergoing an orthopaedic surgical procedure. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019123268

Outcome measures for young people with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis:A qualitative exploration of healthcare professionals’ perceptions and practices

Background: Limited knowledge exists on current use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and performance measures for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), as well as health care professionals’ (HCPs) perceived barriers and facilitators towards their use. This study’s objectives were: 1) to explore current practice of HCPs when assessing outcomes for AIS 2) to understand perceived barriers and facilitators of HCPs to use PROMs 3) to understand perceived barriers and facilitators of HCPs to use performance measures. Methods: A qualitative study recruited a purposive sample of HCPs from a tertiary hospital in the United Kingdom. Mean years of experience managing individuals with AIS was 11.8 years; and included surgeons, physiotherapists and nurses, educated at Bachelor, Masters and Doctoral level. Consent to participate and demographic information were collected in advance of the interviews. In-depth, virtual semi-structured interviews were informed by a topic guide based on current evidence. Interviews of approximately 45 minutes were audio and video recorded and transcribed verbatim alongside written field notes. Data were coded and analysed using inductive thematic analysis, involving researchers with topic and methodological expertise and input from a patient representative. Results: Two themes emerged regarding current practice of using PROMs routine practice and personal evaluations. Four themes emerged as barriers to using PROMs for individuals with AIS: priority and support (e.g., HCPs focus on providing care), practical challenges (e.g., inadequate PROMs), patient-related challenges (e.g., patient preferences) and knowledge, education, and perceived value. Two themes emerged as facilitators: quality existing measure (e.g., sufficient psychometric properties), and priority and support (e.g., research department/culture). Themes for barriers to use performance measures were practicality (e.g., need physical space) and perceived value and knowledge (e.g., PROMs are more important), while the one theme for facilitators was practical consideration (e.g., acceptability). Conclusions: Although HCPs perceived the value of using outcome measures, current practice indicates limited use for individuals with AIS. The findings revealed different barriers and facilitators to implement PROMs in practice. Adopting performance measure are limited due to lack of knowledge and perceived value alongside the practicality, while considering practical factors can improve the use of these measures in practice

Care home resident and staff perceptions of the acceptability of nutrition intervention trial procedures:A qualitative study embedded within a cluster randomised feasibility trial

Objectives To examine care home resident and staff perceptions of the acceptability of participating in a feasibility trial evaluating nutritional interventions in the treatment of malnutrition. Design Exploratory qualitative methodology was used to gather descriptions of resident and staff perceptions of trial procedures, using semi-structured interviews with residents and focus groups with staff. The interviews were used to explore individual perceptions of the acceptability of the assigned intervention and the outcomes measured. Focus groups were used to explore staff experiences of trial participation and perspectives of nutritional support interventions. Setting The study was embedded within a cluster randomised feasibility trial, which randomised six care homes to provide standard care (SC), food-based (FB) intervention or oral nutritional supplement (ONS) intervention to residents with, or at risk of, malnutrition. Participants Residents in the trial with capacity to consent (n=7) formed the sampling frame for inclusion. Four agreed to be approached by the researcher and to take part in the individual interviews. All were women, representing two arms of the trial (ONS and SC). Twelve staff participated in six focus groups, one at each care home. All participants were women, representing all three arms of the trial. Results Major themes that emerged from both interviews and focus groups included the perceived acceptability of trial involvement, the value of residents completing participant-reported outcome measures and the challenges associated with outcomes measurement in this setting. Themes that emerged from the focus groups alone, included the importance of individualising an intervention, and the perceived value of FB and ONS interventions and dietetic input. Conclusions Residents and staff perceived involvement in a trial evaluating nutritional interventions to be acceptable, although the challenges associated with research in this setting were acknowledged. Resident preferences were highlighted by staff as an important consideration when implementing a nutrition support plan. Trial registration number ISRCTN3804792