Aim The aim was to examine the subgroups of work engagement in frontline nurses during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Background The pandemic may affect the work engagement of nurses who have direct contact with infected patients and lead to a poor quality of care. Identifying classification features of work engagement and tailoring interventions to support frontline nurses is imperative. Design This study utilized a cross‐sectional study design. Methods Three hundred fifty‐five nurses were enrolled in this cross‐sectional study from 14 February to 15 April 2020. A latent profile analysis was performed to identify classification features of work engagement. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to examine predictors of profile membership. Results A four‐profile model provided the best fit. The four profiles were titled ‘low work engagement’ ( n = 99), ‘high vigour‐low dedication and absorption’ ( n = 58), ‘moderate work engagement’ ( n = 63) and ‘high work engagement’ ( n = 135). A regression analysis suggested that young nurses and nurses who were the only children of their family were more likely to be in the ‘low work engagement’ and ‘high vigour‐low dedication and absorption’ groups. Conclusion This study highlights the importance of tailoring interventions for frontline supporting nurses by considering their distinct work engagement patterns, especially during the COVID‐19 pandemic, to improve the promotion of work satisfaction and quality of care. Impact This was the first study to explore the latent profiles of work engagement in frontline nurses during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Over 40% of nurses were in the ‘low work engagement’ and ‘high vigour‐low dedication and absorption’ groups and reported low levels of work engagement. Understanding different patterns of work engagement in frontline nurses can help nursing managers provide emotional, material and organizational support based on the features of each latent profile, which may improve the quality of care and patient safety.

BackgroundThe prognosis of patients undergoing lung cancer treatment might be influenced by mental health status. Resilience is one of the important predictors to reflect the mental health status. It has been shown that patients with higher levels of social support, self-care self-efficacy, and positive coping have greater resilience. This study aimed to determine the mediating role of self-efficacy and positive coping in the relationship between social support and psychological resilience in patients with lung cancer.MethodThis is a cross-sectional study that was conducted in in the oncology departments and thoracic surgical wards of four tertiary hospitals in Hunan Province, China, between November 2016 and November 2017. Three hundred and three patients who were undergoing treatment for lung cancer volunteered their participation in the study. Participants completed questionnaires, including the Chinese version of the Perceived Social Support Seale Scale, the Chinese version of Strategies Used by People to Promote Health Scale, and the Chinese version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale.ResultsMediation analysis indicated that self-care self-efficacy and social support partially mediate the effect of social support on resilience. Direct paths from social support to self-efficacy, self-efficacy to positive coping, positive coping to psychological resilience, self-efficacy to psychological resilience, and social support to psychological resilience were significant (p < 0.001). The indirect paths from social support to self-efficacy and self-efficacy to psychological resilience were also significant. The chain mediation from social support to self-efficacy, self-efficacy to positive coping, and positive coping to resilience were significant.ConclusionSelf-efficacy and positive coping play an important role in the relationship between social support and resilience in patients receiving cancer treatment. Social support not only directly influenced psychological resilience but also indirectly influenced psychological resilience through self-efficacy and positive coping.

No abstract

Background: CircRNAs have been found to be involved in the pathogenesis of various diseases. We aimed to explore the roles of circRNAs in ovarian cancer.Methods: The expression levels of circRNAs in ovarian cancer and normal ovarian tissues were analyzed using RNA sequencing. Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), proliferation assays and transwell assays were used to assess the effects of circRNAs on ovarian cancer.Results: CircATRNL1 and circZNF608 were downregulated in 20 ovarian cancer tissues compared to normal tissues. CircATRNL1 and circZNF608 are mainly located in the cytoplasm of ovarian cancer cells, and circATRNL1 is a highly conserved circRNA. The overexpression of circATRNL1 and circZNF608 inhibits the proliferation and invasion of ovarian cancer cells. We predicted miRNA–circRNA interactions for circZNF608 and circATRNL1 and obtained 63 interactions. However, a luciferase reporter assay showed that only miR-152-5p was sequestered by circZNF608. Bioinformatics analysis and experiments indicated that circATRNL1 contains an internal ribosome entry site and an open reading frame encoding a 131 aa protein.Conclusion: In conclusion, circATRNL1 and circZNF608 are two downregulated circRNAs in ovarian cancer and work as tumor suppressors. CircZNF608 may exert antitumor activity in ovarian cancer by binding miR-152-5p, and circATRNL1 may encode a 131 aa protein.

Methods: Eligible randomized controlled trials on psychological interventions for reducing fear of cancer recurrence in breast cancer survivors were included in metaanalysis. Review Manager 5.4 was used to conduct the meta-analysis, and the fear of cancer recurrence score was calculated by using standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk-ofbias tool. Quality of evidence, sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analyses were also conducted. Results: This systematic review included 16 randomized controlled trials. We found psychological interventions significantly reduced fear of cancer recurrence. Subgroup analyses indicated that mindfulness and acceptance therapy-based interventions reduced fear of cancer recurrence, whereas cognitive-behavioural therapy combined with psychoeducation did not. Interventions with three to eight sessions were effective, while interventions with nine or more sessions were not. Face-to-face interventions were effective, whereas online interventions were not. The quality of evidence for fear of cancer recurrence was evaluated as moderate due to moderate heterogeneity in the included studies. Conclusions: Psychological interventions were effective in reducing fear of cancer recurrence in breast cancer survivors. Mindfulness and acceptance therapy-based interventions and short-term interventions are recommended. Future well-designed randomized controlled trials aiming to examine the effectiveness of psychological interventions in reducing fear of cancer recurrence are needed. Impact: The findings of this systematic review may guide the development of psychological interventions and encourage the use of psychological interventions for reducing fear of cancer recurrence in breast cancer survivors.