No abstract

Abstract:The World Transplant Games (WTG) is a biennial worldwide sporting event. Most published research relating to WTG has focused on medical issues. However, few studies have examined factors such as psychological wellbeing in sport for this group. The purpose of this study is to provide a description of the English-speaking participants at the WTG and analyze five research questions linked to how (1) health, (2), satisfaction with sports participation (3), perceived competence, (4) health as a benefit of sport participation (5), and impaired health as a cost of sports participation, are related to psychological factors in sports. There were a total of 253 participants with a mean age of 43.6 years, originating from seven English-speaking nations. Four validated psychological questionnaires were used, as well as a screening of background data of the group. The main characteristics of the English-speaking population were university educated middle age men with kidney transplants, who had participated in athletics at a rather high competitive level before the transplant. The main statistical findings particularly showed that satisfaction with sport participation, perceived health and health as a benefit were the dependent variables that explained most of the variance in the analysis. In conclusion, perceived competence, enjoyment and health seem to be critical psychological factors that essentially act as prime motivating factors behind participation in games such as WTG, and ultimately lead to a sense of psychological well-being among the participants. Finally, there is a discussion of future research, as well as the practical value of the results.

Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Boström, B., Hinic, H., Lundberg, D., & Fridlund, B. (2003). Pain and health-related quality of life among cancer patients in final stage of life: a comparison between two palliative care teams. Journal of Nursing Management, 11(3), 189-196. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal . Cancer is a complex disease, characterized by both acute and chronic episodes (Aaronson et al. 1993). Treatment for cancer is the primary goal for both patients and care providers, together with a return to normal life, as far as possible. When cancer resists or recurs, goals may change to prolonging life and palliating symptoms, while maintaining as normal a life-style as possible (Kaasa et al. 1999, Given et al. 2000. Therefore health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessment, as a supplement to documentation of symptom rates and adverse effects of treatment, has become more important in evaluating the consequences of care (Bowling 1995, Tamburini et al. 1996. The main goal is to achieve the best HRQOL for both the patient and his or her family (WHO 1990, Doyle et al. 1993. Pain control plays a key role in determining HRQOL and pain is experienced by A two-centred descriptive study was performed in order to describe and compare pain and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among cancer patients, in their final stage of life. The patients were cared for by either a nurse-led palliative care team I (PCT I) or a physician-led palliative care team II (PCT II). Forty-six consecutive, stratified patients (PCT I, n ¼ 21 and PCT II, n ¼ 25) participated. The medical outcomes study short form 36 (SF-36) was used for evaluating HRQOL and the Pain-O-Meter for assessing pain. Patients' pain intensity, pain quality and HRQOL showed no significant difference between the two groups PCT I and PCT II. The patients from PCT I had significantly longer survival time (P ¼ 0.017) than those from PCT II. The different composition of the teams being led by nurses or physicians is worth further research; both from the patient's and staff's viewpoint, there may also be cost-benefits worth examining.

No abstract