Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism: Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions and Meta-Analyses

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/89926/1/oysermancoonkemmelmeier2002.pd

Changes in Sexual Roles and Quality of Life for Gay Men after Prostate Cancer: Challenges for Sexual Health Providers

Introduction Gay men with prostate cancer ( GMPCa ) may have differential health‐related quality of life ( HRQOL ) and sexual health outcomes than heterosexual men with prostate cancer ( PCa ), but existing information is based on clinical experience and small studies. Aims Our goals were to: (i) describe HRQOL and examine changes in sexual functioning and bother; (ii) explore the psychosocial aspects of sexual health after PCa ; and (iii) examine whether there were significant differences on HRQOL and sexual behavior between GMPCa and published norms. Methods A convenience sample of GMPCa completed validated disease‐specific and general measures of HRQOL , ejaculatory function and bother, fear of cancer recurrence, and satisfaction with prostate cancer care. Measures of self‐efficacy for PCa management, illness intrusiveness, and disclosure of sexual orientation were also completed. Where possible, scores were compared against published norms. Main Outcome Measures Main outcome measures were self‐reported sexual functioning and bother on the E xpanded P rostate C ancer I ndex. Results Compared with norms, GMPCa reported significantly worse functioning and more severe bother scores on urinary, bowel, hormonal symptom scales ( P s < 0.015–0.0001), worse mental health functioning ( P  < 0.0001), greater fear of cancer recurrence ( P  < 0.0001), and were more dissatisfied with their PCa medical care. However, GMPCa reported better sexual functioning scores ( P  < 0.002) compared with norms. Many of the observed differences met criteria for clinical significance. Physical functioning HRQOL and sexual bother scores were similar to that of published samples. GMPCa tended to be more “out” about their sexual orientation than other samples of gay men. Conclusions GMPCa reported substantial changes in sexual functioning after PCa treatment. They also reported significantly worse disease‐specific and general HRQOL , fear of recurrence, and were less satisfied with their medical care than other published PCa samples. Sexual health providers must have an awareness of the unique functional and HRQOL differences between gay and heterosexual men with PCa. Hart TL, Coon DW, Kowalkowski MA, Zhang K, Hersom JI, Goltz HH, Wittmann DA, and Latini DM. Changes in sexual roles and quality of life for gay men after prostate cancer: Challenges for sexual health providers. J Sex Med 2014;11:2308–2317.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/108360/1/jsm12598.pd

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews:a scoping review

Abstract Background There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. Methods We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010–2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review. Results We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews. Discussion/conclusion We identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources. Systematic review registration The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4

Китаб Ибрагима Хосеневича из коллекции Национальной библиотеки Республики Беларусь как исторический источник : реферат к дипломной работе / Инна Чеславовна Кевра; БГУ, Исторический факультет, Кафедра источниковедения; науч. рук. Белявский А.М.

The construct of individualism–collectivism (IND-COL) has become the definitive standard in cross-cultural psychology, management, and related fields. It is also among the most controversial, in particular, with regard to the ambiguity of its dimensionality: Some view IND and COL as the opposites of a single continuum, whereas others argue that the two are independent constructs. We explored the issue through seven different tests using original individual-level data from 50 studies and meta-analytic data from 149 empirical publications yielding a total of 295 sample-level observations that were collected using six established instruments for assessing IND and COL as separate constructs. Results indicated that the dimensionality of IND-COL may depend on (a) the specific instrument used to collect the data, (b) the sample characteristics and the cultural region from which the data were collected, and (c) the level of analysis. We also review inconsistencies, deficiencies, and challenges of conceptualizing IND-COL and provide guidelines for developing and selecting instruments for measuring the construct, and for reporting and meta-analyzing results from this line of research

Cultural Orientations in the United States: (Re)Examining Differences among Ethnic Groups

The authors investigate differences in individualism and collectivism between the four largest ethnic groups in the United States (African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, and European Americans). It has been asserted that U.S. minorities score higher in collectivism compared to European Americans, whereas European Americans score higher in individualism than minorities. The authors reexamined these assumptions using meta-analytic techniques with new data (total N = 1,510). Asian Americans and African Americans but not Latinos scored higher in collectivism than did European Americans. African Americans exhibited the highest levels of individualism. The authors discuss the cultural, historical, and social factors that should be taken into account to adequately characterize cultural orientation of socially constructed groups

Cultural Psychology, A New Look: Reply to Bond (2002), Fiske (2002), Kitayama (2002), and Miller (2002)

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/89927/1/oyserman__kemmelmeier__coon__2002.pd

Nurses' strategies for overcoming barriers to fundamental nursing care in patients with COVID-19 caused by infection with the SARS-COV-2 virus: Results from the 'COVID-NURSE' survey

Aims To identify strategies used by registered nurses and non-registered nursing care staff in overcoming barriers when providing fundamental nursing care for non-invasively ventilated inpatients with COVID-19. Design Online survey with open-ended questions to collect qualitative data. Methods In August 2020, we asked UK-based nursing staff to describe any strategies they employed to overcome barriers to delivering care in 15 fundamental nursing care categories when providing care to non-invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19. We analysed data using Framework Analysis. Results A total of 1062 nurses consented to participate in our survey. We derived four themes. 1) Communication behaviours included adapting verbal and non-verbal communication with patients, using information technology to enable patients’ significant others to communicate with staff and patients, and establishing clear information-sharing methods with other staff. 2) Organizing care required clustering interventions, carefully managing supplies, encouraging patient self-care and using ‘runners’ and interdisciplinary input. 3) Addressing patients’ well-being and values required spending time with patients, acting in loco familiae, providing access to psychological and spiritual support, obtaining information about patients’ wishes early on and providing privacy and comforting/meaningful items. 4) Management and leadership behaviours included training, timely provision of pandemic information, psychological support, team huddles and facilitating regular breaks. Conclusions Our respondents identified multiple strategies in four main areas of clinical practice. Management and leadership are crucial to both fundamental care delivery and the well-being of nurses during pandemics. Grouping strategies into these areas of action may assist nurses and leaders to prepare for pandemic nursing. Impact As these strategies are unlikely to be exclusive to the COVID-19 pandemic, their global dissemination may improve patient experience and help nurses deliver fundamental care when planning pandemic nursing. However, their effectiveness is unknown. Therefore, we are currently evaluating these strategies in a cluster randomized controlled trial