RESUMO
Background: Levels of stress and burnout continue to rise amongst healthcare workers. In addition to systemic and institution-level changes to healthcare practice environments, well-being interventions, resources, and support to assist healthcare providers are necessary. Meditation practices like Heart Rhythm Meditation (HRM) may provide benefits to healthcare workers, but healthcare worker experiences with HRM are not well understood. Objective: To explore healthcare worker experiences with HRM using a journey mapping approach. Methods: An exploratory cross-sectional online survey was administered between May and July of 2020 to a purposeful sample of 25 healthcare workers currently practicing HRM. Surveys consisted of 5 open-ended and 36 multiple-choice items mapped to five journey mapping domains: Discover, Search, Assess, Decide, Assist. Descriptive statistics for survey items were generated in addition to a visual representation of a Persona and associated journey map for HRM. Content analysis was performed on open-ended responses using a general inductive approach to code responses and identify representative quotes. Results: Twenty surveys were completed for a response rate of 80%. The majority of respondents identified as women (n = 14). From the journey mapping output, the overall emotional experience score was an 8.2/10, suggesting respondents had positive experiences with HRM. Open-ended comments suggest that HRM provides important benefits to the personal and professional lives of healthcare workers. A small number of participants reported challenges like feeling difficult emotions during HRM practice. Conclusion: Mapping the healthcare worker journey with HRM identified generally positive experiences with personal and professional benefits. While experiences were largely positive, HRM elicited difficult emotions from some individuals, suggesting that appropriate resources and support are required when considering HRM and other meditation forms.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The ideal management of early-stage cervical cancer has become the subject of a global controversy following the publication of a prospective study in 2018 that reported a worse oncologic outcome when comparing the minimally invasive approach to the laparotomy approach. The discussion involves both prospective and retrospective data and general and theoretical considerations. We wanted to look at the data available today and review the different opinions, offering an impartial assessment of the ongoing controversy. METHODS: The available literature was reviewed, focusing on articles arguing for and against minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer. We tried to avoid any fundamental bias, as is often evident in the available reviews on the subject. Literature both before and after the 2018 publication was taken into consideration. RESULTS: As is usual in discussions of concepts, the literature that is now available provides arguments for both sides of this challenging issue, depending on one's standpoint. Science-related writing is not immune to trends. There is a curious shift in opinion seen before and after 2018. One must question whether there was a prejudice in favor of minimally invasive surgery prior to the publication of the NEJM articles and a bias against it afterward. CONCLUSION: Whether further minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer is invariable is tied to the more pressing question of how this surgery will have to be centralized in the future. Unless these questions are linked, no satisfactory solution can be found.
