Screening for breast cancer : medicalization, visualization and the embodied experience

Women’s perspectives on breast screening (mammography and breast awareness) were explored in interviews with midlife women sampled for diversity of background and health experience. Attending mammography screening was considered a social obligation despite women’s fears and experiences of discomfort. Women gave considerable legitimacy to mammography visualizations of the breast, and the expert interpretation of these. In comparison, women lacked confidence in breast awareness practices, directly comparing their sensory capabilities with those of the mammogram, although mammography screening did not substitute breast awareness in a straightforward way. The authors argue that reliance on visualizing technology may create a fragmented sense of the body, separating the at risk breast from embodied experience

Adapting a Program to Inform African American and Hispanic American Women About Cancer Clinical Trials

The dearth of evidence-based clinical trial education programs may contribute to the underrepresentation of African American and Hispanic American women in cancer research studies. This study used focus group-derived data from 80 women distributed among eight Spanish- and English-language focus groups. These data guided the researchers’ adaptation and refinement of the National Cancer Institute’s various clinical trials education programs into a program that was specifically focused on meeting the information needs of minority women and addressing the barriers to study participation that they perceived. A “sisterhood” theme was adopted and woven throughout the presentation

Abuse-related post-traumatic stress during the childbearing year

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75405/1/j.1365-2648.2004.03051.x.pd

The role of qualitative research in adding value to a randomised controlled trial: lessons from a pilot study of a guided e-learning intervention for managers to improve employee wellbeing and reduce sickness absence

The GEM study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research Programme (project number 10/3007/06)

Standard versus prosocial online support groups for distressed breast cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Internet can increase access to psychosocial care for breast cancer survivors through online support groups. This study will test a novel prosocial online group that emphasizes both opportunities for getting and giving help. Based on the helper therapy principle, it is hypothesized that the addition of structured helping opportunities and coaching on how to help others online will increase the psychological benefits of a standard online group.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A two-armed randomized controlled trial with pretest and posttest. Non-metastatic breast cancer survivors with elevated psychological distress will be randomized to either a standard facilitated online group or to a prosocial facilitated online group, which combines online exchanges of support with structured helping opportunities (blogging, breast cancer outreach) and coaching on how best to give support to others. Validated and reliable measures will be administered to women approximately one month before and after the interventions. Self-esteem, positive affect, and sense of belonging will be tested as potential mediators of the primary outcomes of depressive/anxious symptoms and sense of purpose in life.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study will test an innovative approach to maximizing the psychological benefits of cancer online support groups. The theory-based prosocial online support group intervention model is sustainable, because it can be implemented by private non-profit or other organizations, such as cancer centers, which mostly offer face-to-face support groups with limited patient reach.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01396174">NCT01396174</a></p

Organizational Discourse: Domains, Debates, and Directions

Interest in the analysis of organizational discourse has expanded rapidly over the last two decades. In this article, we reflect critically on organizational discourse analysis as an approach to the study of organizations and management, highlighting both its strengths and areas of challenge. We begin with an explanation of the nature of organizational discourse analysis and outline some of the more significant contributions made to date. We then discuss existing classifications of approaches to the study of organizational discourse and suggest that they fall into two main categories: classifications by level of analysis and classifications by type of method. We argue that both of these approaches are inherently problematic and present an alternative way to understand the varieties of approaches to the analysis of organizational discourse based on within domain and across domain characterizations. We conclude with a discussion of the challenges that remain in the development of organizational discourse as an area of study and point to some of the opportunities for important and unique contributions to our understanding of organizations and management that this family of methods brings. © 2012 Copyright Academy of Management