Patients' experiences and perceived causes of persisting discomfort following day surgery

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aim of this study was to describe patients' experiences and perceived causes of persisting discomfort following day surgery. Earlier research has mainly covered symptoms and signs during a recovery period of up to one month, and not dealt with patients' perceptions of what causes persisting, longer-term discomfort.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study is a part from a study carried out during the period May 2006 to May 2007 with a total of 298 day surgery patients. Answers were completed by 118 patients at 48 hours, 110 at seven days and 46 at three months to one open-ended question related to discomfort after day surgery constructed as follows: <it>If you are still experiencing discomfort related to the surgery, what is the reason, in your opinion</it>? Data was processed, quantitatively and qualitatively. Descriptive, inferential, correlation and content analyses were performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The results suggest that patients suffer from remaining discomfort e.g. pain and wound problem, with effects on daily life following day surgery up to three months. Among patients' perceptions of <it>factors leading to discomfort </it>may be <it>wrongful or suboptimal treatment</it>, <it>type of surgery </it>or <it>insufficient access to provider/information.</it></p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results have important implications for preventing and managing discomfort at home following day surgery, and for nursing interventions to help patients handle the recovery period better.</p

Beyond a Dichotomous View of the Concepts of 'Sex' and 'Gender' Focus Group Discussions among Gender Researchers at a Medical Faculty

Introduction: The concepts of 'sex' and 'gender' are both of vital importance in medicine and health sciences. However, the meaning of these concepts has seldom been discussed in the medical literature. The aim of this study was to explore what the concepts of 'sex' and 'gender' meant for gender researchers based in a medical faculty. Methods: Sixteen researchers took part in focus group discussions. The analysis was performed in several steps. The participating researchers read the text and discussed ideas for analysis in national and international workshops. The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. The authors performed independent preliminary analyses, which were further developed and intensively discussed between the authors. Results: The analysis of meanings of the concepts of 'sex' and 'gender' for gender researchers based in a medical faculty resulted in three categories; "Sex as more than biology", with the subcategories 'sex' is not simply biological, 'sex' as classification, and 'sex' as fluid and changeable; "Gender as a multiplicity of power-related constructions", with the subcategories: 'gender' as constructions, 'gender' power dimensions, and 'gender' as doing femininities and masculinities; "'Sex and gender as interwoven", with the subcategories: 'sex' and 'gender' as inseparable and embodying 'sex' and 'gender'. Conclusions: Gender researchers within medicine pointed out the importance of looking beyond a dichotomous view of the concepts of 'sex' and 'gender'. The perception of the concepts was that 'sex' and 'gender' were intertwined. Further research is needed to explore how 'sex' and 'gender' interact.Minor Correction: Error in Headings and Error in References (2013-06-25)In the Results section, under the sub-heading "Sex as More than Biology", the three following headings should all be sub-headings of "Sex as More than Biology":'Sex' is not simply biological, 'Sex' as Classification, and 'Sex' as Fluid and ChangeableThere is an error in Reference 9. The following is the correct reference:Christianson M, Alex L, Fjellman Wiklund A, Hammarström A, Lundman B (2012) Sex and gender traps and springboards: A focus group study among gender researchers in medicine and health sciences. Health Care for Women International 33: 739-755.</p

Performance of Expanded Newborn Screening in Norway Supported by Post-Analytical Bioinformatics Tools and Rapid Second-Tier DNA Analyses

In 2012, the Norwegian newborn screening program (NBS) was expanded (eNBS) from screening for two diseases to that for 23 diseases (20 inborn errors of metabolism, IEMs) and again in 2018, to include a total of 25 conditions (21 IEMs). Between 1 March 2012 and 29 February 2020, 461,369 newborns were screened for 20 IEMs in addition to phenylketonuria (PKU). Excluding PKU, there were 75 true-positive (TP) (1:6151) and 107 (1:4311) false-positive IEM cases. Twenty-one percent of the TP cases were symptomatic at the time of the NBS results, but in two-thirds, the screening result directed the exact diagnosis. Eighty-two percent of the TP cases had good health outcomes, evaluated in 2020. The yearly positive predictive value was increased from 26% to 54% by the use of the Region 4 Stork post-analytical interpretive tool (R4S)/Collaborative Laboratory Integrated Reports 2.0 (CLIR), second-tier biochemical testing and genetic confirmation using DNA extracted from the original dried blood spots. The incidence of IEMs increased by 46% after eNBS was introduced, predominantly due to the finding of attenuated phenotypes. The next step is defining which newborns would truly benefit from screening at the milder end of the disease spectrum. This will require coordinated international collaboration, including proper case definitions and outcome studies