Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2025
Women's and practitioners' views of early intensive decongestive lymphoedema treatment for breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema: a focus group study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jeffs Eunice, Ream Emma, Chang Yan-Shing, Taylor Cath, Bick Debra
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To explore the experiences and opinions of women with breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema (BCRL), a common sequela of breast cancer treatment, and of lymphoedema practitioners regarding current lymphoedema treatment in the UK, priority outcomes and assessment methods, and acceptability of a future trial of lymphoedema treatment and use of intensive-decongestive lymphoedema treatment (DLT) for women presenting with BCRL.
METHOD: Two focus groups were conducted with 13 women and three focus groups with 13 lymphoedema practitioners. Discussions were transcribed and analysed using framework analysis.
RESULTS: Usual UK lymphoedema care was self-treatment with hosiery. Women and practitioners supported the notion of early intervention although practitioners reported lack of capacity to provide intensive-DLT. All groups considered arm volume an important outcome but were unsure what treatment outcomes could be expected. Participants supported the need for a trial to identify effective treatment for women with previously untreated BCRL but could not describe criteria for a good clinical outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: Study findings demonstrate the need and desire of women and practitioners for robust research to determine the most effective treatment for women with early-BCRL, that is, within 12 months of BCRL onset, including intensive-DLT. However, UK lymphoedema services lack capacity to provide intensive-DLT, so the potential to conduct a future trial of effectiveness is likely to be limited.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Women with arm BCRL can expect to receive self-treatment with hosiery. There is a need to identify effective treatment for women with arm lymphoedema and criteria for a good clinical outcome.
METHOD: Two focus groups were conducted with 13 women and three focus groups with 13 lymphoedema practitioners. Discussions were transcribed and analysed using framework analysis.
RESULTS: Usual UK lymphoedema care was self-treatment with hosiery. Women and practitioners supported the notion of early intervention although practitioners reported lack of capacity to provide intensive-DLT. All groups considered arm volume an important outcome but were unsure what treatment outcomes could be expected. Participants supported the need for a trial to identify effective treatment for women with previously untreated BCRL but could not describe criteria for a good clinical outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: Study findings demonstrate the need and desire of women and practitioners for robust research to determine the most effective treatment for women with early-BCRL, that is, within 12 months of BCRL onset, including intensive-DLT. However, UK lymphoedema services lack capacity to provide intensive-DLT, so the potential to conduct a future trial of effectiveness is likely to be limited.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Women with arm BCRL can expect to receive self-treatment with hosiery. There is a need to identify effective treatment for women with arm lymphoedema and criteria for a good clinical outcome.