Bøger udgivet af Dissertation.com

Background: Establishing standardized Quality of Life (QOL) core outcomes in stem cell clinical trials is important to ensure (1) researchers and clinicians can make informed decisions, and (2) clinical trials use and consistently measure the same units (Clarke, 2007; Thornley & Adams, 1998). This study reviews the most common QOL methodologies, timing/frequency of the measurement, and outcomes in cardiovascular stem cell clinical trials.Methods: To identify instruments, the study reviewed MEDLINE, Scopus, and US Clinical Trials Register through September 2010, and randomized BMSC controlled trials of clinical trials from 2000-2011. The trials all used the terms (bone marrow stem cell AND quality of life OR heart OR cardiac) AND cardiac AND quality of life OR QOL. The study included a Likert scale web-based questionnaire comprised of eight questions designed to assess QOL patient satisfaction post cardiovascular stem cell treatment.Results: Of the instruments identified, the study found that bone marrow stem cell (BMSC) clinical trials used 35 different types of methodologies, whereas cardiovascular BMSC employed more consistent methodologies. Timing, frequency, and baseline were consistently measured in BMSC clinical trials, whereas cardiovascular BMSC lacked baseline consistency and were measured primarily after treatment. Cardiovascular BMSC outcomes were consistent, whereas BMSC clinical trials had multiple outcomes.The mean participant age was 56.25 years with a minimum age of 46 years and a maximum age of 61 years. Participants generally were educated with a minimum education level of an Associate degree and a maximum degree of Doctorate. The patient satisfaction survey revealed that participants preferred yes/no questions and surveys that required less than 15 minutes to complete, received via email, easy to understand, not too personal, relevant to feelings, containing a baseline measure, and medical-condition specific.Conclusion: QOL outcomes are rarely assessed in BMSC cardiovascular trials. Treatments are performed all over the world, and no one knows whether these treatments actually are effective. Both standardized measurements and additional studies are needed.

Workplace bullying, the repeated and regular act of harassing, offending, socially excluding someone, or negatively affecting someone's work over time has been recognized as a serious threat to the health and well-being of employees. This study sought to explore resilience as a coping strategy to help improve the physical and mental health effects of professional women who have or are experiencing workplace bullying. The central research question was, how does perceived resilience, when used as a coping strategy, help with the physical and mental health stressors while helping to improve the overall well-being of professional women who were or have experienced workplace bullying? Using a qualitative methodology with a single-case study design, 10 professional women who have and are still experiencing workplace bullying were commissioned to participate. To increase the validity of the results, four data techniques were employed: open-ended interviews, researcher notes with observations, and two surveys-the Resilience at Work (R@W) Scale, and the SF12v2 Health Survey. Four major themes emerged: Negative Experiences, Consequences of Bullying, Impact on Health, and Support Systems. It was discovered that the majority of the participants believed that they were targeted at their workplace because of their race, followed by their gender, and age. The women shared that the negative experiences and consequences of bullying can serve as indicators that workplace bullying is evident and that it can affect their health negatively. Additionally, the participants reported that various support systems and networks greatly increased their resilience at work.