MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2988718290 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-131791

Moral Distress, Anxiety, and Others Physical Symptoms Related to Hematopoietic Stem Cell Donation

2019· article· en· W2988718290 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cesar Homero Gutiérrez‐Aguirre, Olga Graciela Cantú Rodríguez, Fernando De la Garza‐Salazar, Rosario Salazar‐Riojas, Andrés Gómez De León, Perla R. Colunga Pedraza, Geraldina Guerrero-González, José Carlos Espín Jaime, Guillermo J. Ruíz‐Argüelles, David Gómez‐Almaguer, Óscar González Llano, Consuelo Mancias

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAnxietyMedicineDistressTransplantationFeelingPsychiatryPsychologyInternal medicineClinical psychologySocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction. Hematopoietic stem cell donors (HSCD) frequently suffer from anxiety and feelings that are usually unnoticed by the physician o their relatives. The origin is multifactorial: fear of pain, fear of the procedure, adverse effects of growth factor, feelings of responsibility regarding the success of the transplant, family pressure, etc. HSCD could show ambivalence of feelings about the donation, which may be related to the moral obligation to help a sick relative and fear of the donation procedure, thus originating anxiety and moral distress (MD). We evaluated the incidence of MD, anxiety, and other symptoms in a group of HSCD regarding donor related allogeneic transplantation. Materials and methods. A prospective observational study was carried out through a survey applied to 60 consecutive HSCD from April, 2014 to January, 2017. Protocol was approved by Institutional Ethics Review Committee and was carried out according to the Declaration of Helsinki. HSCD completed 3 written self-answered questionnaires (Questionnaire to assess moral distress (MDQ) elaborated by the researcher, State Trait Anxiety Index (STAI®) and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS)) in three stages: right before initiating stem cell mobilization, immediately before the apheresis procedure, and 24 hours after the donation. Cell mobilization was done with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) 10 µg/kg/day/4 days while the apheresis collection was performed on the fifth day as an outpatient basis in all cases. Results. Sixty donors, 36 male and 24 female with a mean age of 38.2 years (SD = 13.6) were included. HSCD was a brother/sister of the patient in 39 cases (65%), and one parent in 21 cases. Regarding donor educational level, only 24 (40%) donors had university level. MDQ: Most donors felt happy to be the donor (97%), but 28% said they were not given the opportunity to accept or refuse being the donor, 10% would have preferred that another person had been the donor, and 5% mentioned that donation worsened their family relationship and they would not donate cells again if necessary. The number of donors with negative feelings regarding the donation decreased through the 3MD questionnaires (Table 1). STAI: In the first, second, and third questionnaire, the mean score for the state of anxiety was 12.1 (SD = 7.6), 10.3 (SD = 6.6), and 7.9 (SD = 5.7), respectively. In first STAI, mild to moderate anxiety was observed in 33% of the donors and severe anxiety was observed in 7%, observing a higher score in the first questionnaire, just before starting cell mobilization; however, that score gradually decreased in the following questionnaires. ESAS: In the first questionnaire, although no procedure was still performed, all donors had symptoms, including insomnia (33%), anxiety (33%), and tiredness (30%). In the second ESAS questionnaire, symptoms worsened, mainly pain (78%), tiredness (63%), and insomnia (55%), which was probably related to G-CSF. In the third ESAS questionnaire, there was a significant decrease in the symptoms: pain (60%), tiredness (50%), and discomfort (40%). The average global score for 10 symptoms evaluated was 10.5 (SD = 14.2), 20.1 (SD = 16.0), and 12.3 (SD = 14.4) for the first, second, and third ESAS questionnaires, respectively. According to the score given to each symptom, the most frequent disabling symptoms in each questionnaire were hyporexia (10%), pain (23%), and discomfort (15%) in ESAS questionnaire 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Higher scores for MD correlated with higher scores in STAI questionnaires as well as with lower levels of education (r=0.456, p< .005). Conclusions MD in the donor can manifest both clinically and socially through insomnia, fatigue, loss of appetite, anxiety, and ambivalence of feelings (happy to be the donor but feel morally obligated to donate) which may affect family relationships. Although there is no instrument to measure the MD before performing any procedure in the present study, the donors had different symptoms, such as negative feelings, anxiety, tiredness, difficulty to sleep, and even pain; all of them without an apparent physical reason. It is desirable that donors receive bioethical counseling and psychological guidance before the donation process in order to provide them with the necessary information regarding the experience they are about to endure. Disclosures Gomez-Almaguer: Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Teva: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,004

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,310
Écart entre enseignants0,286 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→Travaux en français237 207→