Non-UK purchasers will have to pay a small fee for post and packing. For European countries the cost is £2 per monograph and for the rest of the world £3 per monograph.You can order HTA monographs from our Despatch Agents:-fax (with credit card or official purchase order) -post (with credit card or official purchase order or cheque) -phone during office hours (credit card only).Additionally the HTA website allows you either to pay securely by credit card or to print out your order and then post or fax it. NHS libraries can subscribe free of charge. Public libraries can subscribe at a very reduced cost of £100 for each volume (normally comprising 30-40 titles). The commercial subscription rate is £300 per volume. Please see our website for details. Subscriptions can only be purchased for the current or forthcoming volume. Contact details are as follows: Payment methods Paying by chequeIf you pay by cheque, the cheque must be in pounds sterling, made payable to Direct Mail Works Ltd and drawn on a bank with a UK address. Paying by credit cardThe following cards are accepted by phone, fax, post or via the website ordering pages: Delta, Eurocard, Mastercard, Solo, Switch and Visa. We advise against sending credit card details in a plain email. Paying by official purchase orderYou can post or fax these, but they must be from public bodies (i.e. NHS or universities) within the UK.We cannot at present accept purchase orders from commercial companies or from outside the UK. How do I get a copy of HTA on CD?Please use the form on the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk/htacd.htm). Or contact Direct Mail Works (see contact details above) by email, post, fax or phone. HTA on CD is currently free of charge worldwide.The website also provides information about the HTA Programme and lists the membership of the various committees. HTAThe measurement of satisfaction with healthcare: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature NHS R&D HTA ProgrammeT he NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme was set up in 1993 to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.Initially, six HTA panels (pharmaceuticals, acute sector, primary and community care, diagnostics and imaging, population screening, methodology) helped to set the research priorities for the HTA Programme. However, during the past few years there have been a number of changes in and around NHS R&D, such as the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the creation of three new research programmes: Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO); New and Emerging Applications of Technology (NEAT); and the Methodology Programme.Although the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment (NCCHTA) commissions research on behalf of the Methodology Programme, it is the Methodology Group that now considers and advises the Methodology Programme Director ...

T he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS. Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources. The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment. Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects. These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA). This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care. It was identified as a priority by the Methodology Panel and funded as project number 94/34/04. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health. The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein. In particular, policy options in the area of screening will be considered by the National Screening Committee. This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations. Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.

Interest in fatigue research has grown since the finding that fatigue/tiredness is the most frequently reported symptom of cancer and its treatment. But even though several authors have tried to conceptualize fatigue (Piper & Rieger, 1989; Cimprich, 1992; Gibson & Edwards, 1985; Winningham, 1994; Irvine et al. 1994; Grandjean, 1970; et al.), its mechanisms are still poorly understood. The aim of this study was two-fold: i) to explore fatigue in cancer patients, inductively, and ii) to compare fatigue/tiredness experiences of healthy individuals with those of cancer patients to identify cancer-specific fatigue/tiredness and related concepts. A qualitative research strategy was adopted using a grounded-theory approach. The prospective study took place in the Oncology Department of the Kantonsspital St Gallen (Switzerland) with samples of 20 cancer patients and 20 healthy individuals. Unstructured, tape-recorded interviews were conducted to collect data. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed using content analysis and constant comparison. Although different themes emerged between the two groups, both fitted a classification system that categorized expression of fatigue/tiredness as physical, affective or cognitive. Physical signs were more frequent than affective and cognitive signs in both groups. For the cancer patients, fatigue involved decreased physical performance, extreme, unusual tiredness, weakness and an unusual need for rest, which was distinctly different for healthy persons. Affective and cognitive distress were also more prominent in cancer patients. Interestingly, the concept of malaise was not identified by either sample and not understood as an expression of fatigue by this German-speaking population. Linguistic differences in the description of fatigue/tiredness between healthy and ill individuals revealed different perceptions of the phenomenon. A step-like theory, involving nociception, perception and expression of tiredness, was put forward tentatively to explain the production of fatigue/tiredness. The emerging concepts break tiredness/fatigue into expressions of physical, affective and cognitive tiredness/fatigue. The experience is different between healthy individuals and cancer patients. The generalization of data needs precaution but the results of the study identify and clarify ideas that might form an important basis for further, controlled studies.

Interest in fatigue research has grown since the finding that fatigue/tiredness is the most frequently reported symptom of cancer and its treatment. But even though several authors have tried to conceptualise fatigue, its mechanisms are still poorly understood. The aim of this study was twofold: (a) to explore fatigue in cancer patients inductively, and (b) to compare experiences of fatigue/tiredness of healthy individuals with those of cancer patients to identify cancer-specific fatigue/tiredness and related concepts. A qualitative research strategy was adopted using a grounded-theory approach. The prospective study took place in the oncology department of the Kantonsspital, St. Gallen, Switzerland, with samples of 20 cancer patients and 20 healthy individuals. Unstructured, tape-recorded interviews were conducted to collect data. The transcripts of the interviews were analysed using content analysis and constant comparison. Different themes emerged between the two groups although both fitted a classification system that categorised fatigue into physical, affective and cognitive expressions of fatigue/tiredness. Physical signs were more frequent than affective and cognitive signs in both groups. In the cancer patients, fatigue involved decreased physical performance, extreme, unusual tiredness, weakness and an unusual need for rest, which was distinctly different for healthy persons. Affective and cognitive distress was also more prominent in cancer patients. Interestingly, the concept of malaise was not identified by either sample and not understood as an expression of fatigue by this German-speaking population. Linguistic differences in the description of fatigue/tiredness between healthy and ill individuals revealed different perceptions of the phenomenon. A step-like theory, explaining the production of fatigue/tiredness was tentatively put forward involving nociception, perception and expression of tiredness. The emerging concepts break tiredness/fatigue into an expression of physical, affective and cognitive tiredness/fatigue. The experience is different between healthy individuals and cancer patients. Care must be taken when drawing generalised conclusions but the results of the study identify and clarify ideas that might form an important basis for further, controlled studies.

A qualitative study to explore the concept of fatigue/tiredness in cancer patients and in healthy individuals Interest in fatigue-research has grown since the finding that fatigue/tiredness is the most frequently reported symptom of cancer and its treatment. But even though several authors have tried to conceptualise fatigue its mechanisms are still poorly understood. The aim of this study was twofold: 1. to explore fatigue in cancer patients, inductively, and 2. to compare experiences of fatigue/tiredness of healthy individuals with that of cancer patients to identify cancer-specific fatigue/tiredness and related concepts. A qualitative research strategy was adopted using a grounded theory approach. The prospective study took place in the Oncology Department of the Kantonsspital St. Gallen (Switzerland) with samples of 20 cancer patients and 20 healthy individuals. Unstructured, tape recorded interviews were conducted to collect data. The transcripts of the interviews were analysed using content analysis and constant comparison. Different themes emerged between the two groups although both fitted a classification system, which categorised fatigue into physical, affective and cognitive expressions of fatigue/tiredness. Physical signs were more frequent than affective and cognitive signs in both groups. In the cancer patients, fatigue involved decreased physical performance, extreme, unusual tiredness, weakness and unusual need for rest, which was distinctly different for healthy persons. Affective and cognitive distress was also more prominent in cancer patients. Interestingly, the concept of malaise was not identified by either sample and not understood as an expression of fatigue by this German speaking population. Linguistic differences in the description of fatigue/tiredness between healthy and ill individuals revealed different perceptions of the phenomenon. A step-like theory, explaining the production of fatigue/tiredness was tentatively put forward involving nociception, perception and expression of tiredness. The emerging concepts break tiredness/fatigue into expression of physical, affective and cognitive tiredness/fatigue. The experience is different between healthy individuals and cancer patients. Generalisability of data needs precaution but the results of the study identifies and clarifies ideas that might form an important basis for further, controlled studies.

No abstract

This paper presents an analysis of the cognitive component of nursing assessment, complimenting the growth in knowledge of other important aspects of assessment. The purpose of the paper is to provide a framework for understanding how nurses structure assessment problems and the types of judgements they make. The thrust of the analysis is based on a comparison between nursing assessment and medical diagnosis, since the cognitive component and judgements formed in medical diagnosis have been more fully articulated. The results suggest that there may be similarities between the cognitive strategies used in nursing assessment and those used in medical diagnosis, particularly in relation to the gathering and organization of information. But the purpose of the information search appears to be different. In medical diagnosis the aim is to establish an explanation for the patient's presenting problem. In nursing assessment, on the other hand, the aim appears to be to provide an accurate picture of the patient's current condition or situation. The assessments formulated fit the definition of a judgement and, in common with medical diagnoses, include some form of prediction. Unlike the medical diagnoses, however, which usually remain stable throughout treatment, the assessments need to change as the patient's condition changes. The cognitive component of assessment has significant implications for nurse education and clinical practice. Further understanding of how nurses structure assessment problems and formulate judgements is therefore needed. The findings may also help to clarify the meaning of nursing diagnosis.

The emerging concepts break tiredness/fatigue into expression of physical, affective and cognitive tiredness/fatigue. The experience is different between healthy individuals and cancer patients. Generalisability of data needs precaution but the results of the study identifies and clarifies ideas that might form an important basis for further, controlled studies.