The rejection of reliability and validity in qualitative inquiry in the 1980s has resulted in an interesting shift for “ensuring rigor” from the investigator's actions during the course of the research, to the reader or consumer of qualitative inquiry. The emphasis on strategies that are implemented during the research process has been replaced by strategies for evaluating trustworthiness and utility that are implemented once a study is completed. In this article, we argue that reliability and validity remain appropriate concepts for attaining rigor in qualitative research. We argue that qualitative researchers should reclaim responsibility for reliability and validity by implementing verification strategies integral and self-correcting during the conduct of inquiry itself. This ensures the attainment of rigor using strategies inherent within each qualitative design, and moves the responsibility for incorporating and maintaining reliability and validity from external reviewers' judgements to the investigators themselves. Finally, we make a plea for a return to terminology for ensuring rigor that is used by mainstream science.

Clinicians need to be aware of the chronicity of CRF and assess for it routinely in medical practice. While there is no gold standard treatment, non-pharmacological interventions with established efficacy can reduce its severity and possibly minimize its disabling impact on patient functioning. Attention must be paid to the co-occurrence and need for possible treatment of depression and other co-occurring physical symptoms as contributing factors.

Purpose Understanding the etiology of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is critical to identify targets to develop therapies to reduce CRF burden. The goal of this systematic review was to expand on the initial work by the National Cancer Institute CRF Working Group to understand the state of the science of the biology of CRF. Specifically, to evaluate studies that examined the relationships between biomarkers and CRF, and to develop an etiologic model of CRF to guide researchers on pathways to explore or therapeutic targets to investigate. Methods This review was completed by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Fatigue Study Group – Biomarker Working Group. The initial search used three terms (biomarkers, fatigue, cancer), which yielded 11,129 articles. After removing duplicates, 7,175 articles remained. Titles were assessed for the keywords, “cancer” and “fatigue” resulting in 3,811 articles. Articles published before 2010 and those with samples <50 were excluded, leaving 75 articles for full-text review. Of the 75 articles, 25 were further excluded for not investigating the associations of biomarkers and CRF. Results Of the 47 articles reviewed, 25 were cross-sectional and 22 were longitudinal studies. Less than half (44%) were published recently (2010-2013). Almost half (46%) enrolled breast cancer participants. A majority of studies assessed fatigue using self-report questionnaires, and only two studies used clinical parameters to measure fatigue. Conclusions The findings from this review suggest that CRF is linked to immune/inflammatory, metabolic, neuroendocrine, and genetic biomarkers. We also identified gaps in knowledge and made recommendations for future research.

Identification of factors influencing perceived control over fatigue will assist health care providers when facilitating community exercise choices for people with MS.

The purpose of this paper was to determine if providing patient specific Quality of Life (QL) information to clinic staff before a clinic appointment improved patient care in a lung cancer outpatient clinic. Patients were sequentially assigned to either a usual care control group or the experimental group, which completed a computerized version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 questionnaire in order to provide the clinic staff with QL information prior to the clinic appointment. The control group completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 paper version after the clinic appointment. Outcome measures were patient satisfaction, the degree to which issues identified on the QL questionnaire were addressed in the appointment, and a chart audit, which measured charting of QL issues and actions taken by the clincian relating to QL. In the experimental group, more QL issues identified by the patient on the EORTC QLQ-C30 were addressed during the clinic appointment than in the control group. As well, marginally more categories were charted and a trend towards more actions being taken was seen in the experimental group. Patients reported being equally and highly satisfied with the treatment in both groups. The clinical implication is that the computerized administration of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire and providing staff with a report highlighting patientspecific QL deficits is a simple, time-effective and acceptable means of improving patient -provider communication in a busy outpatient clinic. Large trials studying its effectiveness in different patient populations and regions would further elucidate the nature of this effect and potentially improve the overall quality of care that patients receive.