The findings of this study highlight that while online resources add to education opportunities, the ongoing nursing assessment required to determine online information needs is not always incorporated into nursing practice. Patient misunderstandings of online material were also identified; developing patient competency in evaluating open access health information should now be recognized as an integral aspect of illness management education.
The steroid hormone estradiol (E2) elicits a spectrum of systemic and uterotropic responses in vivo. For example, E2 treatment of ovariectomized adult and sexually immature rodents leads to uterine leukocytic infiltration, cell proliferation, and organ growth. E2-regulated growth is also associated with a variety of normal and pathological phenotypes. Historically, the uterine growth response has been used as the key model to understand the molecular and biochemical mechanisms underlying E2-dependent growth. In this study, genome exclusion mapping identified two quantitative trait loci (QTL) in the mouse, Est2 and Est3 on chromosomes 5 and 11, respectively, that control the phenotypic variation in uterine wet weight. Both QTL are linked to a variety of E2-regulated genes, suggesting that they may represent loci within conserved gene complexes that play fundamental roles in mediating the effects of E2. Interaction and multiple trait analyses using the uterine leukocyte response and wet weight suggest that Est4, a QTL on chromosome 10, may encode an interacting factor that influences the quantitative variation in both responses. Our results show that E2-dependent responses can be genetically controlled and that a genetic basis may underlie the variation observed in many E2-dependent phenotypes.
BackgroundDecisions aids (DA) can support patients to make informed decisions about screening tests. This study describes the development and initial evaluation of a lung cancer screening (LCS) DA targeted towards survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).MethodsA prototype decision aid booklet was developed and subsequently reviewed by a steering group who provided feedback. Revisions were made to produce the DA tested in this study. HL survivors were recruited to an online survey and/or focus groups. Lymphoma practitioners were invited to an interview study. In the online survey, decisional conflict scales and knowledge scales were completed before and after accessing the DA. The focus groups and interviews explored acceptability and comprehensibility and the decisional needs of stakeholders. Focus groups and interviews were audio recorded. The framework method was used to analyse qualitative data. Results38 HL survivors completed the online survey. Following exposure to the DA, knowledge of LCS and risk factors and decisional conflict scores (total score and subscale scores) improved significantly. 11 HL survivors took part in two focus groups (n=5 and n=6) and 11 practitioners were interviewed. Focus group and interview results: The language, format and length were considered acceptable. Both groups felt the DA was balanced and presented a choice. Icon arrays were felt to aid comprehension of absolute risk values and for some survivors, they reduced affective risk perceptions. Among survivors, the impact of radiation risk on decision making varied according to gender and screening interval, whilst practitioners did not anticipate it to be a major concern for patients. Both groups expressed that a screening offer could mitigate anxiety about lung cancer risk. As anticipated by practitioners, survivors expressed a desire to seek advice from their clinical team. Practitioners thought the DA would meet their informational needs regarding lung cancer screening when supporting survivors. ConclusionsThe DA tested in this study is considered acceptable by HL survivors and their practitioners. The DA reduces decisional conflict and improves knowledge in HL survivors, suggesting that it would support HL survivors to make informed decisions when considering lung cancer screening in a future clinical trial.
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.