| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Bessa, Agustina, et al.
(författare)
-
Designing a Pragmatic Intervention to Help Improve the Bladder Cancer Patient Experience
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Inquiry. - : Sage Publications. - 0046-9580 .- 1945-7243. ; 58
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Bladder cancer (BC) is the 10th most common malignancy worldwide and the patient experience is found to be worse than that for patients diagnosed with other cancer types. We aimed to develop a wellbeing intervention to help improve the bladder cancer patient experience by ameliorating their health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL). We followed the 3 phases of the modified Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework for development of complex interventions. Following a systematic review of the literature on mental, sexual, and physical wellbeing, we conducted discussion groups with patients and healthcare professionals on these 3 themes. A consultation phase was then conducted with all relevant stakeholders to co-design a wellbeing intervention as part of a feasibility study. A pragmatic wellbeing feasibility trial was designed based on the hypothesis that a wellbeing program will increase patient awareness and attendance to services available to them and will better support their needs to improve HRQoL. The primary feasibility endpoints are patient attendance to the services offered and changes in HRQoL. The principle of patient centered care has strengthened the commitment to provide a holistic approach to support BC patients. In this study, we developed a wellbeing intervention in collaboration with patients and healthcare professionals to meet an unmet need in terms of the BC patient experience.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bessa, Agustina, et al.
(författare)
-
Unmet needs in sexual health in bladder cancer patients : a systematic review of the evidence
- 2020
-
Ingår i: BMC Urology. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1471-2490. ; 20:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Bladder cancer (BC) treatment can have a detrimental effect on the sexual organs of patients and yet assessment of sexual health needs has been greatly overlooked for these patients compared to those who have undergone other cancer therapies.Methods: This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in July 2019. Studies were identified by conducting searches for Medline (using the PubMed interface), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Ovid Gateway (Embase and Ovid) using a list of defined search terms.Results: 15 out of 37 studies included men only, 10 studies women only and 11 both sexes. Most participants were aged 50 to 65 years. Most studies (n = 34) focused on muscle invasive BC and only three on non-muscle invasive BC. Measurements of sexual dysfunction, including erection, ejaculation, firmness and desire, were the most commonly used measurements to report sexual health in men. In women, lubrification/dryness, desire, orgasm and dyspareunia were the most commonly reported. Twenty-one studies evaluated sexual dysfunction based on validated questionnaires, two with a non-validated questionnaire and through interviewing participants.Conclusion: While recognition of the importance of the inclusion of psychometric measurements to assess sexual health is growing, there is a lack of consistent measures to assess sexual health in BC. With the focus on QoL arising in cancer survivorship, further studies are needed to develop, standardize and implement use of sexual health questionnaires with appropriate psychometrics and social measures to evaluate QoL in BC patients.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
