Mr Rohan Miegel1,2, Ms Caitlin Davis1, Dr Tim Bright1,2, Prof David. I Watson1,2, Prof Raymond Chan2, Dr Rachel Milte2, Dr Matthew Wallen2, Dr Sarah Hunter2
1Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, Australia, 2Flinders University, Bedford Park, Australia
Biography:
Rohan Miegel is a Senior Physiotherapist in Cancer Care at Flinders Medical Centre, SALHN, where he works with oncology and haematology patients. Rohan has over 10 years' experience as a Physiotherapist in several major hospitals in South Australia and the United Kingdom. He is currently undertaking a part-time PhD at Flinders University investigating perspectives regarding prehabilitation for cancer surgery. He has a strong passion for promoting allied health input early in the cancer care continuum and understanding how to implement this in the public health system.
Abstract:
Purpose:
Prehabilitation ahead of cancer surgery is recommended to include exercise, nutritional and psychological support. However, prehabilitation primarily exists within funded clinical trials and has not been widely or successfully implemented as usual care in Australia. The purpose of this study was to explore patients and family preferences of a model of care.
Design:
A discrete choice experiment was chosen to determine preferences and trade-offs of consumers.
Methods:
Cancer survivors who received treatment that included a tumour resection (n = 87), and families (n=16) were surveyed. No cancer type exclusion criteria to reflect real-world patient cohorts. Conditional and mixed logit regression model to determine consumer preferences.
Results:
Preliminary results include 105 responses. Most patients lived with 30km of the hospital (n=63, 60.6%) were female (n=57, 54.8%) and had a diagnosis of breast cancer (n=40, 38.5%). Frequency and location of prehabilitation appointments influenced participants uptake, indicating that weekly or fortnightly phone calls were preferable. Hospital-based programs were avoided. Higher daily exercise commitment and dietetic support were more likely to promote engagement. Shorter recover to return to normal activities was statistically significant. The risk of dying did not influence choices. Sixty-eight (66%) of respondents were willing to pay for a hypothetical prehabilitation service.
Conclusion:
This study gives new insight into the preferences for a prehabilitation for cancer surgery model of care.