患者和护理人员的观点对于研究重点的制定非常重要。本研究旨在确定癌症患者和护理人员的首要研究重点，并将其与具有康复专业知识的多学科临床医生的研究重点进行比较。这项横断面研究调查了澳大利亚悉尼一家大型三级医院从癌症手术中恢复的患者，和/或2023 年 3 月至 7 月期间，他们的护理人员接受了他们的护理。根据最近的一项国际德尔菲研究确定，根据具有预康复专业知识的临床医生的意见，向同意的患者和护理人员提供了一份研究重点清单。参与者被要求使用 5 项李克特量表对每个研究优先事项的重要性进行评分（范围从 1 = 非常高研究优先级到 5 = 非常低研究优先级）。共有 101 名患者和 50 名护理人员参与了这项研究。四个领域被确定为研究重点，患者、护理人员和临床专家达成了最重要的共识（> 70% 被评为“高”或“非常高”优先级）。这些是“预康复计划的最佳组成”（77% vs. 82% vs. 88%）、“预康复对手术结果的影响”（85% vs. 90% vs. 95%）、“预康复对功能结果的影响” ”（83% vs. 86% vs. 79%），以及“预康复对患者报告结果的影响”（78% vs. 84% vs. 79%）。尽管专家达成了最重要的共识，但患者尚未达成高度重要共识的优先事项包括“确定最有可能从康复中受益的人群”（70% vs. 76% vs. 90%）和“定义康复前核心结果指标” （66% vs. 74% vs. 87%）。 “新辅助治疗期间的康复”达成了患者高度重视的共识，但专家或护理人员没有达成共识（81% vs. 68% vs. 69%）。这项研究描绘了由患者和护理人员确定的主要预康复研究重点，与之前的研究重点不同由具有康复专业知识的临床医生确定。建议随后的高质量研究和资源分配针对这些突出的重要领域。© 2024。作者。

The views of patients and carers are important for the development of research priorities. This study aimed to determine and compare the top research priorities of cancer patients and carers with those of multidisciplinary clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation.This cross-sectional study surveyed patients recovering from cancer surgery at a major tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia, and/or their carers between March and July 2023. Consenting patients and carers were provided a list of research priorities according to clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation, as determined in a recent International Delphi study. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each research priority using a 5-item Likert scale (ranging from 1 = very high research priority to 5 = very low research priority).A total of 101 patients and 50 carers participated in this study. Four areas were identified as research priorities, achieving consensus of highest importance (> 70% rated as "high" or "very high" priority) by patients, carers, and clinical experts. These were "optimal composition of prehabilitation programs" (77% vs. 82% vs. 88%), "effect of prehabilitation on surgical outcomes" (85% vs. 90% vs. 95%), "effect of prehabilitation on functional outcomes" (83% vs. 86% vs. 79%), and "effect of prehabilitation on patient reported outcomes" (78% vs. 84% vs. 79%). Priorities that did not reach consensus of high importance by patients despite reaching consensus of highest importance by experts included "identifying populations most likely to benefit from prehabilitation" (70% vs. 76% vs. 90%) and "defining prehabilitation core outcome measures" (66% vs. 74% vs. 87%). "Prehabilitation during neoadjuvant therapies" reached consensus of high importance by patients but not by experts or carers (81% vs. 68% vs. 69%).This study delineated the primary prehabilitation research priorities as determined by patients and carers, against those previously identified by clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation. It is recommended that subsequent high-quality research and resource allocation be directed towards these highlighted areas of importance.© 2024. The Author(s).