Interviews with Patients Who Have Cancer and Their Family Members provide Insight for clinicians
Capital Hospice, Fairfax, Virginia 22031, USA. Home Healthcare Nurse
11/2005; 23(10):642-6. DOI: 10.1097/00004045-200510000-00008
The words of patients with cancer about pain management are powerful learning tools. Questions were posed about the meaning of pain for patients and families, effective pain management strategies, and professional caregivers' roles to three patients and families. This article details their responses about pain, pain management, and the barriers they encountered. Clinicians are urged to read these case reports to "hear" the importance of effective pain management to individuals and act appropriately.
Available from: Huda Hujier Abu-Saad
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to uncover the lived experience of Lebanese oncology patients receiving palliative care. The study design was based on the Utrecht School of Phenomenology based on the Dutch school of phenomenology. This study followed purposeful sampling in which ten participants, six women, and four men, with a mean age of 54.4 years were selected. In-depth semi-structured interviews along with observation field notes were used as the source for data collection. Data were analyzed using the hermeneutic phenomenological approach based on the Utrecht School of Phenomenology. The participants highlighted their distress from being dependent; their dislike for pity; their worry for the family and the worry about the family's worry; their reliance on God and divinity; their dislike of the hospital stay; their need to be productive; their fear of pain; and their need to communicate. Specific nursing actions related to the themes would include exploring patients' ideas, beliefs, and experiences regarding pain, and improved communication among patient, family, and the health care providers.
European Journal of Oncology Nursing 10/2007; 11(4):309-19. DOI:10.1016/j.ejon.2007.02.008 · 1.43 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This paper is a report of a Critical Interpretive Synthesis to synthesize quantitative research, in the form of an effectiveness review and a guideline, with qualitative research to examine the use of morphine to treat cancer-related pain.
Critical Interpretive Synthesis is a new method of reviewing, developed from meta-ethnography, which integrates systematic review methodology with a qualitative tradition of enquiry. It has not previously been used specifically to synthesize effectiveness and qualitative literature. Data sources. An existing systematic review of quantitative research and a guideline examining the effectiveness of oral morphine to treat cancer pain were identified. Electronic searches of Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsychINFO, Health Management Information Consortium database and the Social Science Citation Index to identify qualitative research were carried out in May 2008.
Qualitative research papers reporting on the use of morphine to treat cancer pain were identified. The findings of the effectiveness research were used as a framework to guide the translation of findings from qualitative research using an integrative grid. A secondary translation of findings from the qualitative research, not specifically mapped to the effectiveness literature, was guided by the framework.
Nineteen qualitative papers were synthesized with the quantitative effectiveness literature, producing 14 synthetic constructs. These were developed into four synthesizing arguments which drew on patients', carers' and healthcare professionals' interpretations of the meaning and context of the use of morphine to treat cancer pain.
Critical Interpretive Synthesis can be adapted to synthesize reviews of quantitative research into effectiveness with qualitative research and fits into an existing typology of approaches to synthesizing qualitative and quantitative research.
Journal of Advanced Nursing 01/2010; 66(1):201-17. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05173.x · 1.74 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.