PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To describe cancer-related fatigue (CRF) from the perspective of individuals experiencing it and examine the fit of their descriptions with the concepts from the Common Sense Model (CSM). DESIGN: Exploratory, qualitative design, SAMPLE: A convenience sample of eight patients with cancer known to be experiencing fatigue from the outpatient clinic. METHODS: Content analysis of data obtained from focus groups. FINDINGS: All statements describing CRF could be classified using the major constructs of the CSM: representation, coping, and appraisal. The majority of statements were classified as representations of fatigue (67%), with smaller proportions classified as coping (26%) and appraisal (7%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence to support the validity of the CSM constructs as an organizing framework in the conduct of research. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: This study demonstrates the usefulness of the model In clinical assessment of patient representations of CRF as well as coping strategies for managing it The model is particularly useful in targeting knowledge deficits and inaccuracies.
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To describe cancer-related fatigue (CRF) from the perspective of individuals experiencing it and examine the fit of their descriptions with the concepts from the Common Sense Model (CSM). DESIGN: Exploratory, qualitative design, SAMPLE: A convenience sample of eight patients with cancer known to be experiencing fatigue from the outpatient clinic. METHODS: Content analysis of data obtained from focus groups. FINDINGS: All statements describing CRF could be classified using the major constructs of the CSM: representation, coping, and appraisal. The majority of statements were classified as representations of fatigue (67%), with smaller proportions classified as coping (26%) and appraisal (7%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence to support the validity of the CSM constructs as an organizing framework in the conduct of research. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: This study demonstrates the usefulness of the model In clinical assessment of patient representations of CRF as well as coping strategies for managing it The model is particularly useful in targeting knowledge deficits and inaccuracies.
Authors: Andrea M Barsevick; Charles S Cleeland; Donald C Manning; Ann M O'Mara; Bryce B Reeve; Jane A Scott; Jeff A Sloan Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Andrea Barsevick; Susan L Beck; William N Dudley; Bob Wong; Ann M Berger; Kyra Whitmer; Tracey Newhall; Susan Brown; Katie Stewart Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2010-06-18 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: D Howell; S Keller-Olaman; T K Oliver; T F Hack; L Broadfield; K Biggs; J Chung; D Gravelle; E Green; M Hamel; T Harth; P Johnston; D McLeod; N Swinton; A Syme; K Olson Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Michela Piredda; Maria Grazia De Marinis; Laura Rocci; Raffaella Gualandi; Daniela Tartaglini; Emma Ream Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2007-03-21 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ann M Berger; Kathi Mooney; Amy Alvarez-Perez; William S Breitbart; Kristen M Carpenter; David Cella; Charles Cleeland; Efrat Dotan; Mario A Eisenberger; Carmen P Escalante; Paul B Jacobsen; Catherine Jankowski; Thomas LeBlanc; Jennifer A Ligibel; Elizabeth Trice Loggers; Belinda Mandrell; Barbara A Murphy; Oxana Palesh; William F Pirl; Steven C Plaxe; Michelle B Riba; Hope S Rugo; Carolina Salvador; Lynne I Wagner; Nina D Wagner-Johnston; Finly J Zachariah; Mary Anne Bergman; Courtney Smith Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Eithne Heffernan; Neil S Coulson; Helen Henshaw; Johanna G Barry; Melanie A Ferguson Journal: Int J Audiol Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 2.117
Authors: Tom I Bootsma; Melanie P J Schellekens; Rosalie A M van Woezik; Marije L van der Lee; Jenny Slatman Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 3.894