Korean nurses' adjustment to hospitals in the United States of America Due to shortage of nurses, more nurses from other countries are employed in health care settings in the United States of America (USA). Little attention has been paid to understanding how culturally different international nurses adjust to USA hospitals. The purpose of this study was to investigate how Korean nurses adjust to USA hospital settings. Grounded theory method was used for sampling procedure, data collection and analysis in order to describe Korean nurses' experiences from their perspective and to develop a substantive theory that explains their process of adjustment. Data were collected using semi-structured formal interviews with a purposive sample of 12 Korean nurses. The interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. Analysis of data, using the constant comparative method, revealed 'adjustment to USA hospitals' as the basic social psychological process. Five categories composed the process: (1) relieving psychological stress; (2) overcoming the language barrier; (3) accepting USA nursing practice; (4) adopting the styles of USA problem-solving strategies; and (5) adopting the styles of USA interpersonal relationships. These five categories capture the essential aspects of the adjustment process and each category contains a set of sub-categories that describe Korean nurses' day-to-day experiences that are critical and also problematic to their adjustment. The process evolves in two stages. In the initial stage, the first three of the five categories greatly influenced the nurses' adjustment. From the perspective of the nurses in the study, the initial stage lasts about 2 to 3 years. The remaining two categories are principal components of the later stage. It takes an additional 5 to 10 years to complete this stage. This model highlights both distress and accomplishments of Korean nurses during their adjustment to USA hospitals. The results of the study may help USA nurses gain insight in designing and implementing orientation programmes to facilitate and support Korean nurses' adjustment to USA hospitals.

Health care systems in Asian countries need to re-think and prioritize survivorship cancer care and put action plans in place to overcome some of the challenges surrounding the delivery of optimal supportive cancer care, use available resource-stratified guidelines for supportive care and test efficient and cost-effective models of survivorship care.

The decision to donate a kidney was described as a highly complicated process involving not only the medical but also psychological, interpersonal, familial, and financial concerns.

BackgroundMost efforts to advance cancer survivorship care have occurred in Western countries. There has been limited research towards gaining a comprehensive understanding of survivorship care provision in the Asia-Pacific region. This study aimed to establish the perceptions of responsibility, confidence, and frequency of survivorship care practices of oncology practitioners and examine their perspectives on factors that impede quality survivorship care.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of hospital-based oncology practitioners in 10 Asia-Pacific countries was undertaken between May 2015–October 2016. The participating countries included Australia, Hong Kong, China, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Singapore, India, Myanmar, and The Philippines. The survey was administered using paper-based or online questionnaires via specialist cancer care settings, educational meetings, and professional organisations.ResultsIn total, 1501 oncology practitioners participated in the study. When comparing the subscales of responsibility perception, frequency and confidence, Australian practitioners had significantly higher ratings than practitioners in Hong Kong, Japan, Thailand, and Singapore (all p < 0.05). Surprisingly, practitioners working in Low- and Mid- Income Countries (LMICs) had higher levels of responsibility perception, confidence and frequencies of delivering survivorship care than those working in High-Income Countries (HICs) (p < 0.001), except for the responsibility perception of care coordination where no difference in scores was observed (p = 0.83). Physicians were more confident in delivering most of the survivorship care interventions compared to nurses and allied-health professionals. Perceived barriers to survivorship care were similar across the HICs and LMICs, with the most highly rated items for all practitioners being lack of time, dedicated educational resources for patients and family members, and evidence-based practice guidelines informing survivorship care.ConclusionsDifferent survivorship practices have been observed between HICs and LMICs, Australia and other countries and between the professional disciplines. Future service planning and research efforts should take these findings into account and overcome barriers identified in this study.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-017-3733-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective:The purpose of this study was to investigate the levels of unmet needs and quality of life (QOL) among family caregivers (FCs) of cancer patients and to characterize the relationship between unmet needs and QOL.Methods:A descriptive correlation design was used. Data were collected by convenience sampling during 2013 from 191 FCs of cancer patients who visited an outpatient cancer center in a general hospital in Korea. The comprehensive needs assessment tool for cancer-caregivers and the Korean version of the Caregiver QOL Index-Cancer were used to measure unmet needs and QOL, respectively.Results:FCs of cancer patients had a variety of unmet needs with prevalence ranged from 57.0% to 88.9%, depending on the domain. The domain with the highest prevalence of unmet needs was healthcare staff, followed by information/education. The mean QOL score was 74.62, with a possible range of 0-140. A negative correlation was found between unmet needs and QOL. Stepwise multiple regression analysis showed that unmet needs relating to health/psychological problems, practical support, family/social support, in addition to household income, cohabitation with the patient, and patient's age, explained 52.7% of the variance in QOL. The most influential factor was unmet needs relating to health/psychological problems, which accounted for 35.7% of the variance.Conclusions:The results of this study indicate that oncology professionals need to develop interventions to improve the QOL of FCs by focusing not only on information/educational needs of patient care but also on physical and psychological needs of FCs.