This is a critique of how designers deal with contending histories and multiple presents in design to speculate about socio-technical futures. The paper unpacks how embedded definitions and assumptions of temporality in current design tools contribute to coloniality in designed futures. As design practice becomes implicated in how oppression extends from physical systems to global digital platforms, our critique rejects the notion that it is only AI that needs fixing and it dissects the Futures Cone used in speculative design to make these issues visible. As an alternative, we offer a hauntological vocabulary to aid designers in reorienting their speculative tools and accommodating pluriversality in anticipatory futures. To illustrate the benefits of the proposed metaphors, we highlight examples of coloniality in digital spaces and emphasize the failure of speculative design to decolonize future imaginaries. Using points of reference from hauntology, those that engage with uncertain states of lingering or spectrality, and notions of nostalgia, absence, and anticipation, this paper contributes to rethinking the role that design tools play in colonizing future imaginaries, especially those pertaining to potentially disruptive technologies.
Background: Esophageal cancer and curative treatment have a significant impact on the physical fitness of patients. Knowledge about the course of physical fitness during neoadjuvant therapy and esophagectomy is helpful to determine the needs for interventions during and after curative treatment. This study aims to review the current evidence on the impact of curative treatment on the physical fitness of patients with esophageal cancer. Methods: A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to March 29, 2021. We included observational studies investigating the change of physical fitness (including exercise capacity, muscle strength, physical activity and activities of daily living) from pre-to post-neoadjuvant therapy and/or from pre-to post-esophagectomy. Quality of the studies was assessed and a meta-analysis was performed using standardized mean differences. Results: Twenty-seven articles were included. After neoadjuvant therapy, physical fitness decreased significantly. In the first three months after surgery, physical fitness was also significantly decreased compared to preoperative values. Subgroup analysis showed a restore in exercise capacity three months after surgery in patients who followed an exercise program. Six months after surgery, there was limited evidence that exercise capacity restored to preoperative values. Conclusion: Curative treatment seems to result in a decrease of physical fitness in patients with esophageal cancer, up to three months postoperatively. Six months postoperatively, results were conflicting. In patients who followed a pre- or postoperative exercise program, the postoperative impact of curative treatment seems to be less.
Background Prehabilitation offers patients the opportunity to actively participate in their perioperative care by preparing themselves for their upcoming surgery. Experiencing barriers may lead to non-participation, which can result in a reduced functional capacity, delayed post-operative recovery and higher healthcare costs. Insight in the barriers and facilitators to participation in prehabilitation can inform further development and implementation of prehabilitation. The aim of this review was to identify patient-experienced barriers and facilitators for participation in prehabilitation. Methods For this mixed methods systematic review, articles were searched in PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they contained data on patient-reported barriers and facilitators to participation in prehabilitation in adults undergoing major surgery. Following database search, and title and abstract screening, full text articles were screened for eligibility and quality was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Relevant data from the included studies were extracted, coded and categorized into themes, using an inductive approach. Based on these themes, the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour (COM-B) model was chosen to classify the identified themes. Results Three quantitative, 14 qualitative and 6 mixed methods studies, published between 2007 and 2022, were included in this review. A multitude of factors were identified across the different COM-B components. Barriers included lack of knowledge of the benefits of prehabilitation and not prioritizing prehabilitation over other commitments (psychological capability), physical symptoms and comorbidities (physical capability), lack of time and limited financial capacity (physical opportunity), lack of social support (social opportunity), anxiety and stress (automatic motivation) and previous experiences and feeling too fit for prehabilitation (reflective motivation). Facilitators included knowledge of the benefits of prehabilitation (psychological capability), having access to resources (physical opportunity), social support and encouragement by a health care professional (social support), feeling a sense of control (automatic motivation) and beliefs in own abilities (reflective motivation). Conclusions A large number of barriers and facilitators, influencing participation in prehabilitation, were found across all six COM-B components. To reach all patients and to tailor prehabilitation to the patient’s needs and preferences, it is important to take into account patients’ capability, opportunity and motivation.
