Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026
Mapping Family Involvement in Prehabilitation for Patients Undergoing Cancer Surgery: A Scoping Review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
You Chuan, Gong Caifang, Shari Norshafarina, Li Jingdong
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Family involvement may enhance adherence to prehabilitation in patients undergoing cancer surgery, but the nature, scope, and effectiveness of family involvement have not been comprehensively mapped.
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to map the existing evidence on family involvement in prehabilitation for patients undergoing cancer surgery. It described intervention characteristics, family roles, delivery approaches, and outcome measures. It also identified current research gaps to inform the development and optimization of future family-involved prehabilitation programs.
METHODS: This scoping review followed the JBI methodology and the PRISMA-ScR reporting guideline. The PCC framework guided the review question and eligibility criteria. PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched from inception to 29 June 2026 using concepts related to family or caregiver involvement, prehabilitation, and cancer surgery. Data were extracted and synthesized by two reviewers independently.
RESULTS: Current evidence is heterogeneous and remains at an early stage, including pilot interventions, practice protocols, qualitative and mixed-methods studies, digital co-design work, observational studies, quality improvement reports, Delphi studies, and reviews. Most interventions were still primarily patient-centered, with family caregivers commonly described as facilitators, sources of behavioral support, or co-recipients of education. Evidence was limited on how caregiver roles were defined, how family caregivers were trained, how competency was assessed, and how feedback mechanisms were organized. Family involvement in prehabilitation was delivered through face-to-face training, printed or video-based materials, telephone follow-up, social media or web-based platforms, remote guidance, and multidisciplinary outpatient services. Outcome assessment focused mainly on patients themselves.
CONCLUSION: Family involvement in prehabilitation is a promising approach for patients undergoing cancer surgery. However, its effectiveness, caregiver-related outcomes, intervention fidelity, and practical implementation models require further evaluation.
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to map the existing evidence on family involvement in prehabilitation for patients undergoing cancer surgery. It described intervention characteristics, family roles, delivery approaches, and outcome measures. It also identified current research gaps to inform the development and optimization of future family-involved prehabilitation programs.
METHODS: This scoping review followed the JBI methodology and the PRISMA-ScR reporting guideline. The PCC framework guided the review question and eligibility criteria. PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched from inception to 29 June 2026 using concepts related to family or caregiver involvement, prehabilitation, and cancer surgery. Data were extracted and synthesized by two reviewers independently.
RESULTS: Current evidence is heterogeneous and remains at an early stage, including pilot interventions, practice protocols, qualitative and mixed-methods studies, digital co-design work, observational studies, quality improvement reports, Delphi studies, and reviews. Most interventions were still primarily patient-centered, with family caregivers commonly described as facilitators, sources of behavioral support, or co-recipients of education. Evidence was limited on how caregiver roles were defined, how family caregivers were trained, how competency was assessed, and how feedback mechanisms were organized. Family involvement in prehabilitation was delivered through face-to-face training, printed or video-based materials, telephone follow-up, social media or web-based platforms, remote guidance, and multidisciplinary outpatient services. Outcome assessment focused mainly on patients themselves.
CONCLUSION: Family involvement in prehabilitation is a promising approach for patients undergoing cancer surgery. However, its effectiveness, caregiver-related outcomes, intervention fidelity, and practical implementation models require further evaluation.