Conectar
Neoadjuvant therapy has become a standard treatment for patients with stage II/III HER2 positive and triple negative breast cancer, and in well-selected patients with locally advanced and borderline resectable high risk, luminal B breast cancer. Side effects of neoadjuvant therapy, such as fatigue, cardiotoxicity, neurotoxicity, anxiety, insomnia, vasomotor symptoms, gastrointestinal disturbance as well as a raft of immune-related adverse events, may impact treatment tolerance, long-term outcomes, and quality of life. Providing early supportive care prior to surgery (typically termed ‘prehabilitation’) may mitigate these side effects and improve quality of life.
During our codesign of the intervention, consumers and healthcare professionals expressed desire for a programme that ‘packaged’ care, was easy to access, and was embedded in their care pathway. We hypothesise that a multimodal supportive care programme including exercise and complementary therapies, underpinned by behavioural change theory will improve self-efficacy, quality of life, readiness for surgery and any additional treatment for women with breast cancer. We seek to explore cardiometabolic, residual cancer burden and surgical outcomes, along with chemotherapy completion (relative dose intensity). This article describes the protocol for a feasibility study of a multimodal prehabilitation programme.
This is a prospective, mixed-method, feasibility study of a multi-modal programme in a hospital setting for 20–30 women with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy. Primary outcomes are recruitment rate, retention rate, adherence and acceptability. Secondary outcomes include patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), surgical outcomes, length of stay, satisfaction with surgery, chemotherapy completion rates, changes in metabolic markers and adverse events. Interviews and focus groups to understand the experience with prehabilitation and different factors that may affect feasibility of the intervention . The output of this study will be a codesigned, evidence-informed intervention assessed for feasibility and acceptability by women with breast cancer and the healthcare professionals that care for them.
The study received ethics approval from the St Vincents Hospital HREC (HREC/2021/ETH12198). Trial results will be communicated to participants, healthcare professionals, and the public via publication and conferences.
ACTRN12622000584730.
The output of scholarly publications in scientific literature has increased exponentially in recent years. This increase in literature has been accompanied by an increase in retractions. Although some of these may be attributed to publishing errors, many are the result of unsavory research practices. The purposes of this study were to identify the number of retracted articles in nursing and reasons for the retractions, analyze the retraction notices, and determine the length of time for an article in nursing to be retracted.
This was an exploratory study.
A search of PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Retraction Watch databases was conducted to identify retracted articles in nursing and their retraction notices.
Between 1997 and 2022, 123 articles published in the nursing literature were retracted. Ten different reasons for retraction were used to categorize these articles with one-third of the retractions (n = 37, 30.1%) not specifying a reason. Sixty-eight percent (n = 77) were retracted because of an actual or a potential ethical concern: duplicate publication, data issues, plagiarism, authorship issues, and copyright.
Nurses rely on nursing-specific scholarly literature as evidence for clinical decisions. The findings demonstrated that retractions are increasing within published nursing literature. In addition, it was evident that retraction notices do not prevent previously published work from being cited. This study addressed a gap in knowledge about article retractions specific to nursing.
FreshRSS 