BackgroundMultiple myeloma is a haematological malignancy characterized by significant morbidity and mortality. This study sought to develop an in-depth understanding of patients’ lived experiences of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and its treatment, and to identify which features of treatment were most important to them.MethodsQualitative interviews and focus groups (FGs) were conducted with 32 people living with RRMM across Canada. In Phase 1, interviews focused on participants’ accounts of their experiences with the disease and its treatment and laid the groundwork for the FGs (Phase 2). The FGs developed a deeper understanding of patients’ treatment priorities. Interview and FG transcripts were coded for emergent themes and patterns.ResultsThe interviews identified important side effects that had significant impacts on patients’ lives, including physical, cognitive, and psychological/emotional side effects. Participants also identified specific treatment features (attributes) that were important to them. These were compiled into a list and used in the FGs to understand patients’ priorities. Higher prioritized attributes were: life expectancy, physical and cognitive side effects, and financial impact. Mode of administration, treatment intervals, psychological side effects, and sleep/mood effects were identified as lower priorities.ConclusionsRRMM and its treatments impact importantly on patients’ quality-of-life across a range of domains. Patients prioritized treatment features that could enhance life expectancy, minimize side effects and offset financial burdens.Implications for cancer survivorsA clear articulation of patient priorities can contribute to efforts to design treatment with patients’ concerns in mind, thereby promoting a more patient-centered approach to care.
This article summarizes our deepened understanding of decolonizing research with, for, and by Indigenous peoples and peoples of African descent that emerged from conducting a scoping review of the methodological literature and reflecting on our review process. Although our review identified decolonizing methodologies as a promising approach, we questioned if our scoping review process engaged in decolonizing knowing. To unpack the epistemological tensions between decolonizing knowing and Western ways of doing scoping reviews, we engaged in individual and collective reflective processes- dialoguing with the tensions-moving from individual immersion in the literature to transformative dialogues among the team. In reflecting upon our tensions with the scoping review process, themes that emerged included (a) ontological/epistemological disjunctures, (b) tensions with concepts and language, and (c) relationships with the literature and beyond. This reflexive process provides valuable insight into ways in which review methods might be made a decolonizing research experience.
BackgroundThis is a study involving three HIV clinics in the Canadian provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Manitoba. We sought to identify ethical issues involving health care providers and clinic clients in these settings, and to gain an understanding of how different ethical issues are managed by these groups.MethodsWe used an institutional ethnographic method to investigate ethical issues in HIV clinics. Our researcher conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews, compiled participant observation notes, and studied health records in order to document ethical issues in the clinics, and to understand how health care providers and clinic clients manage and resolve these issues.ResultsWe found that health care providers and clinic clients have developed work processes for managing ethical issues of various types: conflicts between client-autonomy and public health priorities (“treatment as prevention”), difficulties associated with the criminalization of nondisclosure of HIV positive status, challenges with non-adherence to HIV treatment, the protection of confidentiality, barriers to treatment access, and negative social determinants of health and well-being.ConclusionsSome ethical issues resulted from structural disadvantages experienced by clinic clients. The most striking findings in our study were the negative social determinants of health and well-being experienced by some clinic clients – such as experiences of violence and trauma, poverty, racism, colonization, homelessness, and other factors affecting well-being such as problematic substance use. These negative determinants were at the root of other ethical issues, and are themselves of ethical concern.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.