Living with Pain and Looking for a Safe Environment: A Qualitative Study among Nursing Students with Dysmenorrhea.

Dysmenorrhea refers to chronic pain associated with menstruation that is often accompanied by other symptoms. Primary dysmenorrhea (PD) occurs without any associated pelvic disease. Nonetheless, it may negatively affect women's quality of life. Among university students, dysmenorrhea decreases academic performance and is a cause of absenteeism. The purposes of our study were to describe how nursing students experienced PD and the changes affecting their body and mood. A qualitative case study was performed among 33 nursing students with PD. Data were collected through five focus groups (with two sessions each) and 10 researchers' field notes. We used a video meeting platform to conduct the focus groups. A thematic analysis was performed, and the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research and the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines were followed. Three main themes emerged from the data: (a) living with dysmenorrhea, with two subthemes: menstruation and pain; (b) body changes and mood swings; and (c) seeking a safe environment, with three subthemes: safe environment, unsafe environment, and key safety aspects. Students considered menstruation to be negative and limiting, causing physical and mood changes, making them feel less attractive, and conditioning their way of dressing and relating.

Interference and Impact of Dysmenorrhea on the Life of Spanish Nursing Students.

Dysmenorrhea is a cause of absenteeism in universities which, in the context of nursing studies, may affect mandatory attendance. Moreover, presenteeism is associated with medication errors, patient falls, and a reduced quality of patient care. This study sought to identify the degree of interference of dysmenorrhea on daily life and its impact on academic performance among Spanish nursing students, and to explore the reasons for presenteeism. A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted on 261 nursing students. Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire. The chi square tests, chi-square linear trend, Student's t-test, one-way analysis of variance of polynomial contrasts, and post hoc tests for the bi-variate analysis were used to compare the participants' responses regarding their type of dysmenorrhea and pain intensity. In addition, a multivariate regression was performed to predict absenteeism. The answers to the open questions were analyzed using thematic content analysis techniques. We observed 62.8% of absenteeism and 92.7% of presenteeism due to dysmenorrhea. Absenteeism was observed to be 3.079 (confidence interval (CI): 95%1.724-5.499; p < 0.001) times more likely among women with severe menstrual pain, 2.513 (CI 95%1.314-4.807; p = 0.005) times more in those suffering from menstrual nausea and 1.936 (CI 95%1.098-3.411; p = 0.022) times more frequent in those suffering from diarrhea. The reasons for presenteeism were grouped into five categories: the pain was bearable, it is not a reason to be absent, others don't consider it a reason to be absent, responsibility and guilt, and academic consequences. Dysmenorrhea can have a significant impact on academic performance. The concern among students about the academic repercussions and even feelings of guilt and incomprehension from others leads to high rates of presenteeism with potentially negative consequences for patient care.

The joint effect of ethnicity and gender on occupational segregation. An approach based on the Mutual Information Index.

In this article, we study the effects of ethnicity and gender on occupational segregation. Traditionally, researchers have examined the two sources of segregation separately. In contrast, we measure their joint effect by applying a multigroup segregation index-the Mutual Information or M index-to the product of the seven ethnic groups and two genders distinguished in our 2001 Census data for England and Wales. We exploit M's additive decomposability property to pose the following two questions: (i) Is there an interaction effect? (ii) How much does each source contribute to occupational segregation, controlling for the effect of the other? Although the role of ethnicity is non-negligible in the areas where minorities are concentrated, our findings confirm the greater importance of gender over ethnicity as a source of segregation. Moreover, we find a small "dwindling" interaction effect between the two sources of segregation: ethnicity slightly weakens the segregating power of gender and vice versa.

The measurement of the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices across scientific fields.

This paper has two aims: (i) to introduce a novel method for measuring which part of overall citation inequality can be attributed to differences in citation practices across scientific fields, and (ii) to implement an empirical strategy for making meaningful comparisons between the number of citations received by articles in 22 broad fields. The number of citations received by any article is seen as a function of the article's scientific influence, and the field to which it belongs. A key assumption is that articles in the same quantile of any field citation distribution have the same degree of citation impact in their respective field. Using a dataset of 4.4 million articles published in 1998-2003 with a five-year citation window, we estimate that differences in citation practices between the 22 fields account for 14% of overall citation inequality. Our empirical strategy is based on the strong similarities found in the behavior of citation distributions. We obtain three main results. Firstly, we estimate a set of average-based indicators, called exchange rates, to express the citations received by any article in a large interval in terms of the citations received in a reference situation. Secondly, using our exchange rates as normalization factors of the raw citation data reduces the effect of differences in citation practices to, approximately, 2% of overall citation inequality in the normalized citation distributions. Thirdly, we provide an empirical explanation of why the usual normalization procedure based on the fields' mean citation rates is found to be equally successful.

The citation merit of scientific publications.

We propose a new method to assess the merit of any set of scientific papers in a given field based on the citations they receive. Given a field and a citation impact indicator, such as the mean citation or the [Formula: see text]-index, the merit of a given set of [Formula: see text] articles is identified with the probability that a randomly drawn set of [Formula: see text] articles from a given pool of articles in that field has a lower citation impact according to the indicator in question. The method allows for comparisons between sets of articles of different sizes and fields. Using a dataset acquired from Thomson Scientific that contains the articles published in the periodical literature in the period 1998-2007, we show that the novel approach yields rankings of research units different from those obtained by a direct application of the mean citation or the [Formula: see text]-index.