1,720,979 research outputs found
'I think it affects every aspect of my life, really': Cancer survivors' experience of living with chronic pain after curative cancer treatment in England, UK
Full text linkAim: To explore cancer survivors’ experiences of living with chronic pain after curative cancer treatment in England, UK. Methods: A qualitative study using telephone interviews with adult cancer survivors experiencing chronic pain after curative cancer treatment. Interview data was analysed using a reflexive thematic approach [1–3]. Findings: Nineteen participants: 14 female, 5 male, mean age 62.4 years, 1.5–48 years since cancer diagnosis, eight tumour groups represented. Six participants (31.6%) developed chronic pain more than ten years after completing cancer treatment (range 0–25 years). Five themes were generated which highlighted the experience of chronic pain after cancer treatment for cancer survivors: 1) ‘Hear me… believe me…. Please’. Survivors felt that they had not been listened to when they tried to talk about their chronic pain after cancer treatment, nor at times, believed. 2) ‘Expectation versus reality’. Survivors had anticipated returning to pre cancer quality of life yet living in chronic pain prevented them from doing so. 3) ‘They don’t understand…. We don’t understand’. Cancer survivors did not feel informed or prepared for the risk or reality of chronic pain after cancer treatment and this compounded the difficulties of coping with and managing their pain. They felt health care professionals lacked knowledge and understanding of chronic pain after cancer. 4) ‘Negotiating the maze’. Cancer survivors encountered unclear and limited pathways for support, often bouncing from one support team to another. Identifying and accessing services was a challenge, and the responsibility of this was often left to the survivor. 5) ‘Validate my pain, validate me’. Palpable relief and benefit was felt when health care professionals diagnosed and acknowledged their chronic pain after cancer treatment. Conclusions: Cancer survivors can feel ill prepared for the risk of chronic pain after cancer treatment and can experience challenges accessing support from healthcare professionals and clinical services
The experience of persistent pain in adult cancer survivors: a qualitative evidence synthesis
Full text linkObjectiveThis qualitative evidence synthesis aimed to identify, review and synthesise qualitative research describing the experience of persistent pain in adult cancer survivors.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted between December 2007 and June 2019. Data synthesis followed Thomas and Harden's (2008) method of thematic synthesis.ResultsFour studies were identified, together incorporating findings from 52 female breast cancer survivors. Six themes were generated as follows: (a) interwoven relationship between experience of cancer and persistent pain, (b) lack of preparedness and support for persistent pain, (c) physical impact of persistent pain, (d) employing coping strategies, (e) emotional experience of persistent pain and (f) conceptualisation of persistent pain.ConclusionsPersistent pain is intrinsically interwoven with women's experiences of cancer. Persistent pain was unexpected, and women did not feel supported. Women need more information about persistent pain after cancer treatment and support with self‐management of pain. Ways to best support cancer survivors with persistent pain need exploration and a review of currently available services is required. More research is needed to understand the experiences of men and other cancer groups
Development of clinical recommendations to improve the care of people living with chronic pain as a long term or late effect of cancer and its treatment
No full textBACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a common side effect of cancer treatment and is frequently cited as a top concern and unmet need for cancer survivors. This paper outlines the development of clinical recommendations to better support people with chronic pain as a long-term or late side effect of cancer and its treatment.METHOD: Evidence was identified from empirical research, and new insights from cancer survivors (
n = 19) and healthcare professionals (
n = 135), with findings informing draft clinical recommendations. These recommendations were reviewed and refined within online stakeholder engagement events, which comprised Phase 1 researcher review (
n = 5) and Phase 2 Expert Review Panels (four groups and two one-to-one discussions). Membership of expert panels included cancer survivors living with chronic pain after cancer, and clinical, research, and education experts (
n = 16). Data generated from Expert Review Panels were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis.
RESULTS: There was shared opinion among stakeholders that the recommendations would be beneficial in this setting, the recommendations reflected the evidence and the complexity of implementation was acknowledged. Validating cancer survivors' experiences of chronic pain was seen as essential to best practice and the importance of informed patients and healthcare professionals making good decisions together was recognised.CONCLUSIONS: Resultant clinical recommendations are summarised as:
PAINS:
Prepare and inform,
Acknowledge and listen,
Increase healthcare professional knowledge,
Name and diagnose, and
Services and supported self-management interventions. Implementation strategies and future research are proposed.
</p
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
- …
