1,720,956 research outputs found
Mapping and comparing the quality of life outcomes in childhood and adolescent and young adult cancer survivors: an umbrella review and future directions
No full textBackground: a cancer diagnosis early in life can leave a legacy in terms of compromised Quality of Life (QoL). There is a lack of clarity regarding the impact on QoL according to age at diagnosis, with childhood cancer survivors (CCS) and adolescents and young adult cancer survivors (AYACS) often combined. As part of an EORTC Quality of Life Group study, this umbrella review aims to (1) identify the QoL outcomes reported in the literature for both CCS and AYACS, and (2) investigate the similarities and differences in QoL challenges between both groups. Methods: a systematic literature search of systematic reviews and meta-analyses was conducted in December 2023 using PubMed, PsychInfo, and CINAHL. Methodological quality was evaluated using the AMSTAR tool. Results: overall, 1457 articles were assessed, and 39 systematic reviews and meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. QoL outcomes were categorized into eight QoL domains, all of which were reported in both groups of young survivors. However, reviews on CCS often focused on outcomes relating to emotional functioning, cognitive difficulties, social challenges, school functioning, body image and overall happiness, whereas AYACS reviews had a greater focus on depressive symptoms, outcomes related to sexual health and reproductive health, employment, financial difficulties, self-image and identity and the impact of cancer. Conclusion: this umbrella review comprehensively explores QoL outcomes among CCS and AYACS, revealing both shared and distinct challenges. Future research should focus on developing tailored questionnaires, emphasizing transition periods and incorporating a life perspective to capture unique developmental tasks of young survivors<br/
"Meet us where we’re at": towards engaging and inclusive research with young adults with a lived experience of cancer
No full textBackground/Objective: meaningful engagement with young adults (YAs) with a lived experience of cancer is important for conducting impactful research on issues that matter to them, and ensures their voices are central to shaping cancer research outcomes. This preliminary study explored barriers and facilitators to participation in research, to identify strategies for making cancer research more inclusive and responsive to the needs of YAs. Methods: this qualitative study involved twelve YAs (aged 21-43 years at time of interview) with a lived experience of cancer who participated in a focus group or interview. Participants were recruited via multiple cancer charities/organisations and social media platforms. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: barriers to research participation were Person Specific (health and wellbeing, logistical and practical challenges, knowledge, understanding and confidence) and Systemic (lack of advocacy, social and cultural influences). A multi-pronged approach to engage YAs in cancer research should include framing research to make it more relatable, using accessible language, and showcasing its potential value and impact. Incentivising participation and offering flexible engagement formats, (e.g., online surveys and videos), to meet individuals where they are, can aid participation. Collaboration with trusted organisations, ensuring diverse representation in recruitment materials, and using social media platforms were recognised as effective ways to reach a broader audience and ensure inclusivity. Conclusions: we provide practical strategies on how to implement these approaches. From a researcher perspective, early consideration of funding allocation (e.g., dedicated person for social media engagement, time of Patient and Public Involvement) is key to support these strategies and enhance engagement.<br/
Mapping and comparing the quality of life challenges in childhood and adolescent and young adult cancer survivors: an umbrella review and future directions
No full textBackground: a cancer diagnosis early in life can leave a legacy in terms of compromised Quality of Life (QoL). There is a lack of clarity regarding the impact on QoL according to age at diagnosis, with childhood cancer survivors (CCS) and adolescents and young adult cancer survivors (AYACS) often combined. As part of an EORTC Quality of Life Group study, this umbrella review aims to (1) identify the QoL outcomes reported in the literature for both CCS and AYACS, and (2) investigate the similarities and differences in QoL challenges between both groups. Methods: a systematic literature search of systematic reviews and meta-analyses was conducted in December 2023 using PubMed, PsychInfo, and CINAHL. Methodological quality was evaluated using the AMSTAR tool. Results: overall, 1457 articles were assessed, and 39 systematic reviews and meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. QoL outcomes were categorized into eight QoL domains, all of which were reported in both groups of young survivors. However, reviews on CCS often focused on outcomes relating to emotional functioning, cognitive difficulties, social challenges, school functioning, body image and overall happiness, whereas AYACS reviews had a greater focus on depressive symptoms, outcomes related to sexual health and reproductive health, employment, financial difficulties, self-image and identity and the impact of cancer. Conclusion: this umbrella review comprehensively explores QoL outcomes among CCS and AYACS, revealing both shared and distinct challenges. Future research should focus on developing tailored questionnaires, emphasizing transition periods and incorporating a life perspective to capture unique developmental tasks of young survivors.<br/
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
- …
