A qualitative examination of the factors related to the development and maintenance of insomnia in cancer survivors
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: Insomnia is underrecognized and inadequately managed, with close to 60% of cancer survivors experiencing insomnia at some point in the treatment trajectory. The objective of this study was to further understand predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating factors in the development and maintenance of insomnia in cancer survivors. METHOD: A heterogeneous sample of 63 patients who had completed active treatment was recruited. Participants were required to have a score >7 on the Insomnia Severity Index and meet the diagnostic criteria for insomnia disorder. Open-ended, semistructured interviews were conducted to elicit participants' experiences with sleep problems. An a priori set of codes and a set of codes that emerged from the data were used to analyze the data. RESULT: The mean age of the sample was 60.5 years, with 30% identifying as non-white and 59% reporting their sex as female. The cancer types represented were heterogeneous with the two most common being breast (30%) and prostate (21%). Participants described an inherited risk for insomnia, anxious temperament, and insufficient ability to relax as predisposing factors. Respondents were split as to whether they classified their cancer diagnosis as the precipitating factor for their insomnia. Participants reported several behaviors that are known to perpetuate problems with sleep including napping, using back-lit electronics before bed, and poor sleep hygiene. One of the most prominent themes identified was the use of sleeping medications. Participants reported that they were reluctant to take medication but felt that it was the only option to treat their insomnia and that it was encouraged by their doctors. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Insomnia is a prevalent, but highly treatable, disorder in cancer survivors. Patients and provider education is needed to change individual and organizational behaviors that contribute to the development and maintenance of insomnia and increase access to evidence-based nonpharmacological interventions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».