Dietary Practices After Primary Treatment for Ovarian Cancer: A Qualitative Analysis From the OPAL Study

BackgroundLittle is known about the dietary practices of women who have completed primary treatment for ovarian cancer, many of whom will go on to have cancer recurrence and further treatment. Knowledge of dietary practices is needed to optimize care.ObjectiveOur aim was to identify dietary practices after primary treatment for ovarian cancer and evaluate how these practices differ by disease recurrence and treatment status.DesignWomen with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer were provided with the following open-ended question after completing a food frequency questionnaire: “Is there anything we haven’t asked you about your diet in the last 1 to 2 months that you feel is important?”Participants/settingParticipants were from the OPAL (Ovarian Cancer Prognosis and Lifestyle) Study in Australia.Main outcomesThe main outcomes were dietary practices after primary treatment for ovarian cancer and factors affecting these practices.AnalysisParticipants’ responses were analyzed using content analysis. Individual content codes were categorized and reported by recurrence and treatment status at questionnaire completion.ResultsTwo hundred eighty-six women provided responses on 363 questionnaires. Those undergoing further treatment for recurrence commonly reported dietary regimens with clinical indications (eg, low fiber to avoid bowel obstructions, high energy/protein to minimize nutritional deficits). Those not undergoing further treatment frequently reported “popular” diets (eg, organic, plant-based, and alkaline). For women with cancer recurrence, dietary practices were affected by poor appetite and late effects of treatment. For women without recurrence, other comorbidities, geographical location, family, and friends appeared to influence dietary practices. In both groups, nutrition information sources and personal beliefs informed dietary practices. Participant responses that referenced media or online sources often included misinformation.ConclusionsAfter primary treatment for ovarian cancer, women report dietary practices that may not be captured in standard food frequency questionnaires. Dietary practices and factors affecting these practices likely differ by treatment and recurrence status. Improved access to evidence-based dietary information and support is needed.     

日本J-Stage国家期刊传播平台与期刊语种影响研究

【目的】 以J-Stage平台的概况和日本科技期刊的语种分类为基础,深入分析J-Stage的实施细节及其在推动日本科技期刊发展中的关键作用与角色,对我国期刊发展形成启示。【方法】 采用前瞻研究法,从平台架构、组织和功能方面分析J-Stage的发展现状,并结合日本科技期刊的语种分类进行分析。【结果】 J-Stage的特色在于整合全国学术期刊资源、采取公益性运行机制、重视用户体验、不断更新服务、对接国际标准等,对我国期刊平台建设具有一定的借鉴意义。【结论】 J-Stage的建设有利于日本多语种科技期刊的共同发展和国际影响力提升。国家级科技期刊平台不仅是期刊发展的基础设施,还要兼具前瞻性导向作用和精益管理能力。     

Vaccine innovation model: A technology transfer perspective in pandemic contexts

This work identifies the innovations that made it possible for the Bio-Manguinhos/Fiocruz Immunobiological Technology Institute to engage in the entire production of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCov-19) in Brazil, just 1.8 years after the COVID-19 pandemic was declared. The results were summarized in a case-based innovation model composed of 11 workstreams, 32 stages, 22 gates, 11 innovations, and 38 events. In terms of research contributions, three were found: (i) the identification of firm and government-level innovations allowing the substantial reduction in the COVID-19 vaccine time-to-market in Brazil; (ii) the presentation of empirical evidence supporting the new Outbreak Paradigm for vaccine research, development, and production; and (iii) the proposition of a conceptual model for describing innovations through the vaccine value chain in pandemic contexts, particularly when technology transfer is involved.     

Considerations for systematic reviews of quantitative surveys: Learnings from a systematic review of the Patients’ Attitudes Towards Deprescribing questionnaire

This commentary looks at the process of conducting a systematic review of surveys and validated questionnaires. Surveys and other questionnaire style tools are often used in the field of social and administrative pharmacy, to capture beliefs, attitudes and experiences of patients and healthcare professionals (including pharmacists). Currently, there is little guidance available on how to conduct a systematic review of these types of studies. Considerations related to the process of a systematic review are highlighted, including identification of articles, data extraction, assessing quality of articles and synthesis and analysis of data.