GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    SAGE Publications ; 2008
    In:  Palliative Medicine Vol. 22, No. 5 ( 2008-07), p. 653-658
    In: Palliative Medicine, SAGE Publications, Vol. 22, No. 5 ( 2008-07), p. 653-658
    Abstract: The phenomenon of the ‘illness narrative’ is well-documented, in the last 25 years, of increasing interest to researchers in health and social sciences. Personal stories about the experience of facing the end of life also have an established history of particular relevance for palliative care clinicians. In this article, we review and describe a range of narrative analysis approaches that may be of use in palliative care. In particular, we distinguish between qualitative analysis applied to narratives and narrative analysis as a method. We discuss the potential benefits and challenges in the use of narrative research methods as a means to deepen our understanding of patient, carer and health professionals’ experience, and to support improvements in end of life care policy and practice.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0269-2163 , 1477-030X
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2008
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2027566-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Clinical Trials, SAGE Publications, Vol. 14, No. 3 ( 2017-06), p. 255-263
    Abstract: The US National Cancer Institute recently developed the PRO-CTCAE (Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). PRO-CTCAE is a library of questions for clinical trial participants to self-report symptomatic adverse events (e.g. nausea). The objective of this study is to inform evidence-based selection of a recall period when PRO-CTCAE is included in a trial. We evaluated differences between 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods, using daily reporting as the reference. Methods: English-speaking patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were enrolled at four US cancer centers and affiliated community clinics. Participants completed 27 PRO-CTCAE items electronically daily for 28 days, and then weekly over 4 weeks, using 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods. For each recall period, mean differences, effect sizes, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate agreement between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding ratings obtained using longer recall periods (e.g. maximum of daily scores over 7 days vs 1-week recall). Analyses were repeated using the average of daily scores within each recall period rather than the maximum of daily scores. Results: A total of 127 subjects completed questionnaires (57% male; median age: 57). The median of the 27 mean differences in scores on the PRO-CTCAE 5-point response scale comparing the maximum daily versus the longer recall period (and corresponding effect size) was −0.20 (−0.20) for 1-week recall, −0.36 (−0.31) for 2-week recall, −0.45 (−0.39) for 3-week recall, and −0.47 (−0.40) for 4-week recall. The median intraclass correlation across 27 items between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding longer recall ratings for 1-week recall was 0.70 (range: 0.54–0.82), for 2-week recall was 0.74 (range: 0.58–0.83), for 3-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.61–0.84), and for 4-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.64–0.86). Similar results were observed for all analyses using the average of daily scores rather than the maximum of daily scores. Conclusion: A 1-week recall corresponds best to daily reporting. Although intraclass correlations remain stable over time, there are small but progressively larger differences between daily and longer recall periods at 2, 3, and 4 weeks, respectively. The preferred recall period for the PRO-CTCAE is the past 7 days, although investigators may opt for recall periods of 2, 3, or 4 weeks with an understanding that there may be some information loss.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1740-7745 , 1740-7753
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2017
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2159773-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: Clinical Trials, SAGE Publications, Vol. 18, No. 1 ( 2021-02), p. 104-114
    Abstract: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library designed for eliciting patient-reported adverse events in oncology. For each adverse event, up to three individual items are scored for frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities. To align the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events with other standardized tools for adverse event assessment including the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, an algorithm for mapping individual items for any given adverse event to a single composite numerical grade was developed and tested. Methods: A five-step process was used: (1) All 179 possible Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events score combinations were presented to 20 clinical investigators to subjectively map combinations to single numerical grades ranging from 0 to 3. (2) Combinations with 〈 75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network cooperative group meeting to gain majority consensus via anonymous voting. (3) The resulting algorithm was refined via graphical and tabular approaches to assure directional consistency. (4) Validity, reliability, and sensitivity were assessed in a national study dataset. (5) Accuracy for delineating adverse events between study arms was measured in two Phase III clinical trials (NCT02066181 and NCT01522443). Results: In Step 1, 12/179 score combinations had 〈 75% initial agreement. In Step 2, majority consensus was reached for all combinations. In Step 3, five grades were adjusted to assure directional consistency. In Steps 4 and 5, composite grades performed well and comparably to individual item scores on validity, reliability, sensitivity, and between-arm delineation. Conclusion: A composite grading algorithm has been developed and yields single numerical grades for adverse events assessed via the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and can be useful in analyses and reporting.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1740-7745 , 1740-7753
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2159773-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...