Yapılan araştırma sonucunda ulaşılan tezlerin amaçları 17 başlık altında toplanmıştır.Araştırmaların modelleri ise 10 kategoride toplanmıştır. Bunun yanında örneklemler 5 ana başlık altında alt başlıkları da içerecek şekilde gruplandırılmıştır. Veri toplama araçları ise nitel veri toplama araçları 17 madde ve nicel veri toplama araçları ise 15 madde halinde sınıflandırılarak incelenmiştir. Bunlara ek olarak sonuçlar teması da incelenerek 26 madde şeklinde sunulmuştur. Son olarak da öneriler teması 20 başlık altında toparlanarak incelenmiştir. Araştırma sonunda, 2013 yılından bu yana bilimin doğası konusunda yapılan tezlerin yıllara göre dağılımında belirgin bir farklılık olmamakla birlikte, yüksek lisans tezlerinin sayısının daha fazla olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Yapılan çalışmalarda, araştırma yaklaşımı olarak karma yaklaşımın, araştırma modeli olarak deneysel araştırma modelinin, örneklem olarak öğretmen adaylarının ve öğrencilerin, veri toplama aracı olarak ise bilimin doğası ölçeği, mülakat ve gözlem tekniklerinin ağırlıklı olarak kullanıldığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca yapılan çalışmaların genellikle durum belirleme olarak ele alındığı, yeni ve farklı yönelimlere rastlanmadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bilimsel bilgiye ulaşmada önemli olan bilim öğretimi tüm insanları bilim okuryazarı olarak yetiştirmeyi, bilim insanlarının elde ettiği teori ve kuramları nasıl ortaya koyduklarını ve bunları hangi yolları kullandıklarını kısacası bilimin nasıl yapıldığını anlamalarını sağlar.Herkes tarafından kabul edilmiş ortak bir tanıma sahip olmayan bilimsel okuryazarlık veya fen okuryazarlığı terimini literatürdeki tanımlara göre genel bir çerçeveye toplamak mümkündür. Kısacası bilimin doğasını bilen, bilimsel düşünebilme becerisine sahip olan bireyler bilimsel okuryazardır (Collette ve Chiapetta, 1984; Norris ve Philips, 2003;Weld, 2004). Bilimsel okuryazar bir bireyin sahip olması gereken en önemli özelliklerden biri bilim ve bilimin doğası hakkında anlamlı görüşlere sahip olmasıdır. Ayrıca bilimsel okuryazar olan bireylerin bilimin doğasını anlamaları gerekmektedir (Lederman, 1992(Lederman, , 2004(Lederman, ,2007 Lederman ve Zeidler, 1987). 15 Sosyobilimsel konularda akıl yürütme ile bilimsel bilginin doğasını anlama arasındaki ilişkiyi belirlemek.

IntroductionRadical cystectomy (RC) is the standard treatment for patients with non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer, as well as for patients with therapy refractory high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. However, 50–65% of patients undergoing RC experience perioperative complications. The risk, severity and impact of these complications is associated with a patient’s preoperative cardiorespiratory fitness, nutritional and smoking status and presence of anxiety and depression. There is emerging evidence supporting multimodal prehabilitation as a strategy to reduce the risk of complications and improve functional recovery after major cancer surgery. However, for bladder cancer the evidence is still limited. The aim of this study is to investigate the superiority of a multimodal prehabilitation programme versus standard-of-care in terms of reducing perioperative complications in patients with bladder cancer undergoing RC.Methods and analysisThis multicentre, open label, prospective, randomised controlled trial, will include 154 patients with bladder cancer undergoing RC. Patients are recruited from eight hospitals in The Netherlands and will be randomly (1:1) allocated to the intervention group receiving a structured multimodal prehabilitation programme of approximately 3–6 weeks, or to the control group receiving standard-of-care. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who develop one or more grade ≥2 complications (according to the Clavien-Dindo classification) within 90 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes include cardiorespiratory fitness, length of hospital stay, health-related quality of life, tumour tissue biomarkers of hypoxia, immune cell infiltration and cost-effectiveness. Data collection will take place at baseline, before surgery and 4 and 12 weeks after surgery.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for this study was granted by the Medical Ethics Committee NedMec (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) under reference number 22–595/NL78792.031.22. Results of the study will be published in international peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT05480735.

Background: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is currently comparing the effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. This process evaluation assesses the reach and identified constructs for the implementation of primary care-based follow-up. Methods: A mixed-methods approach is used to assess the reach and the implementation through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We use quantitative data to evaluate the reach of the RCT and qualitative data (interviews) to indicate the perspectives of patients (n = 15), general practitioners (GPs) (n = 10), and specialists (n = 8). Thematic analysis is used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results: In total, we reached 402 (67%) patients from 12 hospitals and randomized them to specialist- (n = 201) or to primary care-based (n = 201) follow-up. From the interviews, we identify several advantages of primary care- versus specialist-based follow-up: it is closer to home, more accessible, and the relationship is more personal. Nevertheless, participants also identified challenges: guidelines should be implemented, communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care should be improved, quality indicators should be collected, and GPs should be compensated. Conclusion: Within an RCT context, 402 (67%) patients and their GPs were willing to receive/provide primary care-based follow-up. If the RCT shows that primary care is equally as effective as specialist-based follow-up, the challenges identified in this study need to be addressed to enable a smooth transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care.

242 Background: To improve the quality and efficiency of prostate cancer survivorship care, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is currently comparing the safety and effectiveness of specialist- (usual care) versus primary care-based (intervention) prostate cancer follow-up. This process evaluation assessed the reach and identified constructs for the implementation of primary care-based follow-up in a RCT setting. Methods: A mixed-methods approach was used through the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We used quantitative data to evaluate the reach of the RCT and qualitative data (interviews) to indicate the perspectives of patients, general practitioners (GPs) and specialists. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results: In total, 569 patients with localized prostate cancer from 12 hospitals were invited to participate in the trial. 18 patients were not eligible, 145 patients declined (of whom most preferred follow-up in the hospital), whereas 21 GPs declined to participate. Finally, 385 patients were randomized to specialist- (n=192) or to primary care-based (n=193) follow-up. In addition, we interviewed 15 patients, 10 GPs and 8 specialists. Participants identified several advantages of primary care- versus specialist-based follow-up: it is closer to home, more accessible, the relationship is more personal, and the hospital can focus on patients undergoing active treatment. Nevertheless, participants also identified challenges: evidence-based guidelines should be implemented, communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care should be accessible and transparent, quality indicators (i.e. PSA levels) should be collected, and GPs expect compensation (money or extra capacity). Conclusions: If the RCT shows that primary care- is equally effective as specialist-based follow-up, this study could enable the transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care by presenting information on the reach of an RCT and by providing advantages and challenges of primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up.

No abstract