2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Preferences of oral nutritional supplement therapy among postoperative patients with gastric cancer: Attributes development for a discrete choice experiment

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Adherence to oral nutritional supplement therapy among postoperative patients with gastric cancer is low. There is little knowledge about patients’ priorities and needs regarding oral nutritional supplement therapy. The discrete choice experiment is an innovative method used to elicit patients’ preferences. Good practice guidelines emphasize that the development of attributes and levels is a fundamentally important process.

          Objective

          To comprehensively describe the identification, refinement, and selection of attributes and levels for a discrete choice experiment.

          Methods

          A mixed-methods approach, consisting of three consecutive steps: a literature review, in-depth interviews, and focus groups. First, the literature review allowed quick identification of attributes and levels. Then, 15 in-depth interviews were conducted to gather a rich description of the experience of patients taking oral nutritional supplements after gastrectomy and to verify and enrich the attributes and levels list. Finally, four focus group participants discussed the wording of the attributes and levels and reduced the number of attributes to manageable numbers through voting ranking methods.

          Results

          Following the literature review and qualitative data collection, eight attributes were finally generated, each with two to three levels. The following attributes were included: 1) information provider; 2) health guidance approach; 3) adverse reactions; 4) flavor; 5) follow-up method; 6) follow-up frequency; 7) psychological support; 8) cost. These attributes covered the important attributes of nutritional preparations and health guidance included in ONS therapy that were relevant to patients.

          Conclusions

          This study’s mixed-methods approach has been found highly suitable to identify, refine and select attributes and levels for a discrete choice experiment. The three methods have pros and cons, and they complement each other, especially the analysis of qualitative data led to a deeper and broader understanding of attributes and levels.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries

          This article provides an update on the global cancer burden using the GLOBOCAN 2020 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Worldwide, an estimated 19.3 million new cancer cases (18.1 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and almost 10.0 million cancer deaths (9.9 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) occurred in 2020. Female breast cancer has surpassed lung cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer, with an estimated 2.3 million new cases (11.7%), followed by lung (11.4%), colorectal (10.0 %), prostate (7.3%), and stomach (5.6%) cancers. Lung cancer remained the leading cause of cancer death, with an estimated 1.8 million deaths (18%), followed by colorectal (9.4%), liver (8.3%), stomach (7.7%), and female breast (6.9%) cancers. Overall incidence was from 2-fold to 3-fold higher in transitioned versus transitioning countries for both sexes, whereas mortality varied <2-fold for men and little for women. Death rates for female breast and cervical cancers, however, were considerably higher in transitioning versus transitioned countries (15.0 vs 12.8 per 100,000 and 12.4 vs 5.2 per 100,000, respectively). The global cancer burden is expected to be 28.4 million cases in 2040, a 47% rise from 2020, with a larger increase in transitioning (64% to 95%) versus transitioned (32% to 56%) countries due to demographic changes, although this may be further exacerbated by increasing risk factors associated with globalization and a growing economy. Efforts to build a sustainable infrastructure for the dissemination of cancer prevention measures and provision of cancer care in transitioning countries is critical for global cancer control.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

              Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                29 September 2022
                2022
                : 17
                : 9
                : e0275209
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Fundamental Nursing, School of Nursing, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin Province, PR China
                [2 ] Interventional Operating Room, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin Province, PR China
                [3 ] Department of Hematology, First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin Province, PR China
                [4 ] Department of Histology and Embryology, College of Basic Medical Sciences, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin Province, PR China
                University of Huddersfield, UNITED KINGDOM
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                ‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6006-2914
                Article
                PONE-D-21-35619
                10.1371/journal.pone.0275209
                9522277
                36174091
                c0bb53a0-4830-4291-a918-fc09026efafe
                © 2022 Wang et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 9 November 2021
                : 12 September 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 5, Pages: 18
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001809, National Natural Science Foundation of China;
                Award ID: 31800895
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Undergraduates' Teaching Reform Project of Jilin University
                Award ID: ALK201946, SK202083, 2020zsjpk58
                Award Recipient :
                This work was supported by the funds of National Natural Science Foundation of China [31800895]; Undergraduates' Teaching Reform Project of Jilin University [ALK201946, SK202083, 2020zsjpk58].The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Surgical and Invasive Medical Procedures
                Digestive System Procedures
                Gastrectomy
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Nutrition
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Nutrition
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Oncology
                Cancers and Neoplasms
                Gastrointestinal Tumors
                Gastric Cancer
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Surgical and Invasive Medical Procedures
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Surgical and Invasive Medical Procedures
                Digestive System Procedures
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Adverse Reactions
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Nutrition
                Diet
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Nutrition
                Diet
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Nutrition
                Nutrients
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Nutrition
                Nutrients
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article