Eva Ester Molina Beltran, Nora Dollet Nedellec, Marc Hilmi, Matthieu Delaye, Bruno Raynard, Sandrine Hiret, Damien Vansteene, Florence Carrouel, Claude Dussart, Cindy Neuzillet
{"title":"Implementation and challenges of prehabilitation in gastrointestinal oncology: a national cross-sectional survey in France.","authors":"Eva Ester Molina Beltran, Nora Dollet Nedellec, Marc Hilmi, Matthieu Delaye, Bruno Raynard, Sandrine Hiret, Damien Vansteene, Florence Carrouel, Claude Dussart, Cindy Neuzillet","doi":"10.1016/j.clnesp.2025.09.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To explore the implementation, structure, and challenges of multimodal prehabilitation programs in gastrointestinal (GI) oncology across France, in a context where evidence supports its benefits but national standardization is lacking.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A national cross-sectional survey was conducted from April to July 2024. The 54-item questionnaire, developed by a multidisciplinary group, assessed team demographics, patient selection, intervention modalities, pathway coordination, and barriers to implementation. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 92 respondent teams, 19 (20.7%) reported having a structured prehabilitation pathway. Most included nutritional (94.7%) and physical activity (74%) interventions, while only 5.3% provided systematic psychological support. Program eligibility was generally based on nutritional risk, surgical magnitude, and patient frailty, but varied widely. Prehabilitation was most often coordinated by surgeons (40%) and dietitians (78.9%), and typically delivered in day-hospital settings. Key challenges included insufficient human resources (60%), coordination issues (49%), and funding limitations (35%). Despite these barriers, perceived utility and satisfaction with prehabilitation programs were high (median scores of 8/10 and 8.6/10, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Prehabilitation in GI oncology is emerging but remains inconsistently applied across France. To scale these interventions equitably and effectively, national guidelines, enhanced coordination and institutional support are essential. Integration with existing perioperative pathways like ERAS and increased psychological support are also needed to improve patient outcomes. Only one center in our sample offered systematic psychological support.</p>","PeriodicalId":10352,"journal":{"name":"Clinical nutrition ESPEN","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical nutrition ESPEN","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnesp.2025.09.018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To explore the implementation, structure, and challenges of multimodal prehabilitation programs in gastrointestinal (GI) oncology across France, in a context where evidence supports its benefits but national standardization is lacking.
Methods: A national cross-sectional survey was conducted from April to July 2024. The 54-item questionnaire, developed by a multidisciplinary group, assessed team demographics, patient selection, intervention modalities, pathway coordination, and barriers to implementation. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis.
Results: Among 92 respondent teams, 19 (20.7%) reported having a structured prehabilitation pathway. Most included nutritional (94.7%) and physical activity (74%) interventions, while only 5.3% provided systematic psychological support. Program eligibility was generally based on nutritional risk, surgical magnitude, and patient frailty, but varied widely. Prehabilitation was most often coordinated by surgeons (40%) and dietitians (78.9%), and typically delivered in day-hospital settings. Key challenges included insufficient human resources (60%), coordination issues (49%), and funding limitations (35%). Despite these barriers, perceived utility and satisfaction with prehabilitation programs were high (median scores of 8/10 and 8.6/10, respectively).
Conclusion: Prehabilitation in GI oncology is emerging but remains inconsistently applied across France. To scale these interventions equitably and effectively, national guidelines, enhanced coordination and institutional support are essential. Integration with existing perioperative pathways like ERAS and increased psychological support are also needed to improve patient outcomes. Only one center in our sample offered systematic psychological support.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Nutrition ESPEN is an electronic-only journal and is an official publication of the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). Nutrition and nutritional care have gained wide clinical and scientific interest during the past decades. The increasing knowledge of metabolic disturbances and nutritional assessment in chronic and acute diseases has stimulated rapid advances in design, development and clinical application of nutritional support. The aims of ESPEN are to encourage the rapid diffusion of knowledge and its application in the field of clinical nutrition and metabolism. Published bimonthly, Clinical Nutrition ESPEN focuses on publishing articles on the relationship between nutrition and disease in the setting of basic science and clinical practice. Clinical Nutrition ESPEN is available to all members of ESPEN and to all subscribers of Clinical Nutrition.