Week 3 Evidence Base

WEEK 3 EVIDENCE BASE 1

Week3 Evidence Base

Nameof Student

Nameof Institution

Full referencefor article:

Ashing-Giwa, K. T., &amp Lim, J. (2009). Examining the impact ofsocioeconomic status and socioecologic stress on physical and mentalhealth quality of life among breast cancer survivors. OncologyNursing Forum, 36(1), 79–88. doi: 10.1188/09.ONF.79-88

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

Study problem

The variation of mental and physical health in survivors of breast cancer.

Research question(s)

How does mental and physical health vary in relation to the ethnicity and socioeconomic status of breast cancer survivors? What are the main socioecologic factors that affect the outcomes?

Hypothesis/es if applicable

Study significance for nursing

The study helps in understanding factors that affect cancer survivors (Carr and Steel, 2012).

Literature review

Previous studies were used in the research. The review of literature entailed an analysis of past data and information about the topic.

Funding sources

METHODS

Study design and methods (quantitative or qualitative, randomization, blinding, controls, study groups, length of study, etc.)

The study design employed in the research was cross-sectional. The research methods involved the use of both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The participants were drawn from diverse ethnic backgrounds and questionnaires were administered to them.

Sample selection and data collection setting (inclusion/exclusion criteria, sample size, representativeness, if appropriate)

The selection of the sample was based on an examination of cancer survivors from diverse racial backgrounds. Data was collected through mailing questionnaires (Holland and Frei, 2010). Telephone surveys were also used to collect data from the participants. The sample size was representative.

Interventions (if applicable)

Study instruments/tools (if applicable)

The main tools used in the study were questionnaires.

Data analysis procedures

The data collected was analyzed using graphs, bar charts, as well as tables.

RESULTS

Sample profile

The sample of participants who took part in the study were recruited from registries of hospitals, community agencies based in South California, as well as the Cancer Surveillance Program of California (Wolfe et al, 2008).

Study results (specific results of statistical tests or qualitative analysis)

From the results, the quality of life is better in survivors from a high socio economic status as compared to those in a lower social status.

AUTHORS’ DISCUSSION &amp CONCLUSIONS

Main discussion points

The main determinants of quality of life include mental and physical health, income of the survivor, as well as the type of job they do (Walent &amp Kayser-Jones, 2008).

Authors’ conclusions

Negative quality of life has a close relationship to high socioecologic stress and low socioeconomic status (Paludi, 2014).

STRENGTHS, LIMITATIONS, &amp IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Study strengths

The study has incorporated participants from diverse ethnic backgrounds (Meneses et al, 2009).

Study limitations.

The research only covers a limited number of variables.

Implications for nursing practice

The implication of the study is that there is need to pay more attention to the outcomes of quality of life, especially among people who belong to low socio-economic status since they are at a high risk of becoming ill more often (Ashing-Giwa &amp Lim, 2009.

References

Ashing-Giwa, K. T., &amp Lim, J. (2009). Examining the impact ofsocioeconomic status and socioecologic stress on physical and mentalhealth quality of life among breast cancer survivors. OncologyNursing Forum, 36(1), 79–88.

Carr, B. I., &amp Steel, J. (2013). Psychological aspects ofcancer: A guide to emotional and psychological consequences ofcancer, their causes and their management. New York: Springer.

Holland, J. F., &amp Frei, E. (2010). Cancer medicine 8.Shelton (Conn.: People`s medical publishing house-USA.

Meneses, K., McNees, P., Azuero, A., Loerzel, V. W., Su, X., &ampHassey, L. A. (2009). Preliminary evaluation of psychoeducationalsupport interventions on quality of life in rural breast cancersurvivors after primary treatment. Cancer Nursing, 32(5),385–397. Retrieved fromhttp://journals.lww.com/cancernursingonline/Pages/default.aspx

Paludi, M. A. (2014). The Praeger handbook on women`s cancers:Personal and psychosocial insights. (2014). Santa Barbara,California: Praeger, an imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC.

Walent, R. J., &amp Kayser-Jones, J. (2008). Having a voice andbeing heard: Nursing home residents and in-house advocacy. Journalof Gerontological Nursing, 34(11), 34–42. Retrieved fromhttp://www.healio.com/journals/jgn

Wolfe, D. M., Lehman, L., Quinlin, R., Zullo, T., &amp Hoffman, L.(2008). Effect of patient-centered care on patient satisfaction andquality of care. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 23(4),316–321. doi: 10.1097/01.NCQ.0000336672.02725.a5