Search

Background: Talking about personal olfactory experiences is challenging because subjective, often latent reactions to odor are difficult to perceive and express. In qualitative empirical research on the effects of Aromatherapy (AT), this issue needs to be considered in data collection. Therefore, we developed a new data-collection method to support participants in perceiving and articulating their own olfactory experiences. The method development was embedded in the background study arth4WOMEN about AT for women with gynecological cancers. Method: The data-collection method was developed in five steps inspired by A rts-informed R esearch (AIR) and Creative Writing (CW). A workshop on scent and writing was conceptualized for an existing CW course (n = 8) (step 1). The findings were condensed (step 2) into the new data-collection method called the Olfactory Journey (OLFJ), then pilot tested, discussed with qualitative research experts and adapted (step 3). The final version of the OLFJ was carried out with 15 participants of the background study arth4WOMEN as one part of a qualitative interview concept (step 4), then analyzed via qualitative content analysis (step 5). Results: The analysis of the workshop showed that pictures can be a useful tool to focus on olfactory experiences and find words to express them. Thus, in the OLFJ inner visuals were stimulated by an olfactory trigger and brought into focus through a guided instruction. The inner visuals were used as a tool to talk about the olfactory experiences. The resulting descriptions were characterized by many pictorial associations and marked by contrasts and comparisons. Discussion: The OLFJ as a data-collection method has potential to support participants in their verbal expressions of their olfactory experiences. The inclusion of creative art forms in the development process of the OLFJ was helpful and should be encouraged in future research. Further research is needed to test OLFJ validity and reliability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The prognosis for ovarian cancer patients remains poor. A key to maximizing survival rates is early detection and treatment. This requires an accurate prediction of malignancy. Our study seeks to improve the accuracy of prediction by focusing on early subjective assessment of malignancy. We therefore investigated the assessment of patients themselves in comparison to the assessment of physicians.Methods: One thousand three hundred and thirty patients participated in a prospective and multicenter study in six hospitals in Berlin. Using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression models, we measured the accuracy of the early subjective assessment in comparison to the final histological outcome. Moreover, we investigated factors related to the assessment of patients and physicians.Results: The patients' assessment of malignancy is remarkably accurate. With a positive predictive value of 58%, the majority of patients correctly assessed a pelvic mass as malignant. With more information available, physicians achieved only a slightly more accurate prediction of 63%.Conclusions: For the first time, our study considered subjective factors in the diagnostic process of pelvic masses. This paper demonstrates that the patients' personal assessment should be taken seriously as it can provide a significant contribution to earlier diagnosis and thus improved therapy and overall prognosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients' reported outcomes and their perspectives around their therapeutic management is a field of continuously increasing relevance in gynecological oncology. We report the results of the Berlin dialog on seven patient-reported parameters and outcomes concerning chemotherapy and maintenance treatment in patients with gynecological cancer. Methods Key opinion leaders in gynecological oncology from different European counties and representatives of leading patients' advocate groups in Berlin held a consensus meeting in Berlin on April 6, 2019. Seven topics of interest were identified in advance around quality of life, iatrogenic toxicity, treatment decision-making processes, sexuality, participation in clinical trials, second opinion, and long-term survivors with the following standard operating procedure for processing and discussion: (1) agreement on its relevance; (2) literature review, and (3) discussion and consensus statements. Results All main topics reached a consensus approval. The defined statements emphasized the importance of patients' role in incorporating and establishing quality of life as an outcome parameter in clinical trials. Furthermore, discussants raised the importance of identifying new tools for reflecting patient-reported iatrogenic toxicity as well as emphasizing patients' rights in providing personal information, access to second opinion in the decision-making process, and their participation in clinical trials. Conclusion The results of this round table meeting could help redefine perspectives on the discussed topics and the importance for therapeutic management as well as for trial designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]