Table 2.

Comparison of patient research priorities according to engagement in prehabilitation

	Rated as high or very high priority
Research priorities	Prehabilitation (n = 49)	No prehabilitation (n = 52)	p-value
Effect of prehabilitation on surgical outcomes	46 (94)^	40 (77)^	0.017*
Effect of prehabilitation on patient reported outcomes	43 (88)^	36 (69)	0.024*
Prehabilitation during neoadjuvant therapies	42 (86)^	40 (77)^	0.343
Optimal composition of prehabilitation programs	42 (86)^	36 (69)	0.048*
Effect of prehabilitation on functional outcomes	40 (82)^	44 (85)^	0.689
Optimal nutritional regimen	40 (82)^	33 (63)	0.041
Identifying populations most likely to benefit from prehabilitation	39 (80)^	32 (62)	0.047*
Enhancing compliance and adherence	37 (76)^	36 (69)	0.481
Screening tools to identify patients for consideration of prehabilitation	36 (73)^	34 (65)	0.379
Modes of delivery for prehabilitation	36 (73)^	33 (63)	0.28
Defining prehabilitation core outcome measures	36 (73)^	31 (60)	0.277
Cost effectiveness of prehabilitation programs	34 (69)	28 (54)	0.109

Data presented as frequency (percentage). Prehabilitation, patients who engaged in prehabilitation. No prehabilitation, patients who did not engage in prehabilitation. Research priorities listed in descending order from highest priority to lowest priority according to consensus of patients who engaged in prehabilitation. Research priority rating scale: 1 = very high priority, 2 = high priority, 3 = moderate priority, 4 = low priority, or 5 = very low priority. High research priority determined by the number of patients that rated 1 (very high priority) or 2 (high priority) in the research priority rating scale. Research priority reached consensus of high importance if rated as 1 (very high) or 2 (high) by > 70% of participants in the group. ^Research priority reached consensus of high importance by group. *Significant difference in ratings between prehabilitation and no prehabilitation groups (p < 0.05)