Search

Objective: Kidney stone disease (KSD) is a common, complex and painful urological condition, but how patients make sense of and respond to the challenges of KSD is poorly understood. Using the common‐sense model of illness self‐regulation (CSM‐SR), we aimed to explore the illness experiences of individuals with KSD. Design: A qualitative design using individual semi‐structured interviews. Methods: Thirty‐three patients with KSD attending outpatient urology services participated in interviews informed by the CSM‐SR. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Themes were mapped onto the domains of the CSM‐SR. Results: Five main themes were generated, broadly echoing domains within the CSM‐SR: (1) making sense of KSD, (2) normality paused, (3) the psychological burden of KSD, (4) the tensions of managing KSD, and (5) improving understanding of KSD. Additionally, findings suggested that partners' perceptions of KSD were an additional contextual factor that informed patients' own perceptions and management of KSD. Participants appraised initial KSD symptoms as indicative of a serious health threat. Diagnosis brought some relief, however, KSD wielded multi‐dimensional impacts on patients' perceptions, self‐management and well‐being. Anxiety, including fear of KSD recurrence, and low mood were common psychological burdens across narratives. Conclusion: The majority of the themes identified were commensurate with an extended CSM‐SR. This model has utility in informing how patients perceive and manage KSD. Examining patients' KSD representations and routinely assessing for psychological distress may be of benefit to improve health outcomes for this patient group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Outcomes for men with localised prostate cancer managed with Active Surveillance (AS) are similar to outcomes for men who have received Active Treatment. This review explore men's perceptions of the factors that influence their decision‐making process when considering AS. Method: A systematic review of studies was conducted up to May 2021, including qualitative studies which explored the decision making of men with localised prostate cancer when considering AS. Evidence was analysed using thematic synthesis. Results: Thirteen papers, including 426 men, met inclusion criteria and were analysed in the review. Approximately half of the men had chosen AS and half had chosen Active Treatment. The choice of AS was not a one‐off decision but rather an ongoing behaviour. Four themes were identified and considered within a temporal model: pre‐diagnosis representations of cancer and treatment; experience of testing and diagnosis; patient decision making; and emotional adjustment to AS. Key barriers and facilitators to men choosing AS were identified. In deciding whether or not to choose AS, men balanced a desire for quality of life against fear of cancer progression. Conclusions: Both cognitive representations and emotional arousal influence how men decided whether or not to opt for AS. Interventions tailored to elicit and address emotional appraisals of risk, and increase trust in AS protocols, may be of value in helping men to make decisions around treatment for localised prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The primary aim of this study was to examine predictors of Return to Productive Roles (RTPR) in individuals with ABI following participation in a community-based RTPR intervention. One hundred and thirty participants were inducted to an ABI-specific RTPR programme. At induction, information on clinical and social demographics, previous education and employment roles were collected. Participants underwent a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment at baseline and completed assessments of disability, mental health and community integration. Participants were followed up at the end of their programme to assess RTPR. Three out of four participants who entered the RTPR programme returned to productive roles. Despite the relatively high levels of anxiety and depression in the sample, people who returned to productive roles were not significantly less anxious or depressed than those who did not. Logistic regression suggested that participants who returned to productive roles following the programme had higher levels of pre-ABI work engagement, less disability and performed better on neuropsychological assessment in terms of their language skills. Results suggest that these factors which cut across specific prior experience, cognitive performance, and social and disability areas of functioning represent barriers to an effective return to productive roles for people with ABI accessing RTPR intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]