NU 500 Theory Evaluation Paper
Regis University NU 500 Theory Evaluation Paper– Step-By-Step Guide
This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Regis University NU 500 Theory Evaluation Paper assignment based on general principles of academic writing. Here, we will show you the A, B, Cs of completing an academic paper, irrespective of the instructions. After guiding you through what to do, the guide will leave one or two sample essays at the end to highlight the various sections discussed below.
How to Research and Prepare for NU 500 Theory Evaluation Paper
Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Regis University NU 500 Theory Evaluation Paper depends on the preparation done beforehand. The first thing to do once you receive an assignment is to quickly skim through the requirements. Once that is done, start going through the instructions one by one to clearly understand what the instructor wants. The most important thing here is to understand the required format—whether it is APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.
After understanding the requirements of the paper, the next phase is to gather relevant materials. The first place to start the research process is the weekly resources. Go through the resources provided in the instructions to determine which ones fit the assignment. After reviewing the provided resources, use the university library to search for additional resources. After gathering sufficient and necessary resources, you are now ready to start drafting your paper.
How to Write the Introduction for NU 500 Theory Evaluation Paper
The introduction for the Regis University NU 500 Theory Evaluation Paper is where you tell the instructor what your paper will encompass. In three to four statements, highlight the important points that will form the basis of your paper. Here, you can include statistics to show the importance of the topic you will be discussing. At the end of the introduction, write a clear purpose statement outlining what exactly will be contained in the paper. This statement will start with “The purpose of this paper…” and then proceed to outline the various sections of the instructions.
How to Write the Body for NU 500 Theory Evaluation Paper
After the introduction, move into the main part of the NU 500 Theory Evaluation Paper assignment, which is the body. Given that the paper you will be writing is not experimental, the way you organize the headings and subheadings of your paper is critically important. In some cases, you might have to use more subheadings to properly organize the assignment. The organization will depend on the rubric provided. Carefully examine the rubric, as it will contain all the detailed requirements of the assignment. Sometimes, the rubric will have information that the normal instructions lack.
Another important factor to consider at this point is how to do citations. In-text citations are fundamental as they support the arguments and points you make in the paper. At this point, the resources gathered at the beginning will come in handy. Integrating the ideas of the authors with your own will ensure that you produce a comprehensive paper. Also, follow the given citation format. In most cases, APA 7 is the preferred format for nursing assignments.
How to Write the Conclusion for NU 500 Theory Evaluation Paper
After completing the main sections, write the conclusion of your paper. The conclusion is a summary of the main points you made in your paper. However, you need to rewrite the points and not simply copy and paste them. By restating the points from each subheading, you will provide a nuanced overview of the assignment to the reader.
How to Format the References List for NU 500 Theory Evaluation Paper
The very last part of your paper involves listing the sources used in your paper. These sources should be listed in alphabetical order and double-spaced. Additionally, use a hanging indent for each source that appears in this list. Lastly, only the sources cited within the body of the paper should appear here.
Stuck? Let Us Help You
Completing assignments can sometimes be overwhelming, especially with the multitude of academic and personal responsibilities you may have. If you find yourself stuck or unsure at any point in the process, don’t hesitate to reach out for professional assistance. Our assignment writing services are designed to help you achieve your academic goals with ease.
Our team of experienced writers is well-versed in academic writing and familiar with the specific requirements of the NU 500 Theory Evaluation Paper assignment. We can provide you with personalized support, ensuring your assignment is well-researched, properly formatted, and thoroughly edited. Get a feel of the quality we guarantee – ORDER NOW.
Description
Unit 4 Assignment Theory Evaluation Paper
Abstract
The role of interdisciplinary as well as middle range theories in informing clinical practice can never be understated. Theories such as Alberta Bandura’s self-efficacy and adaptation model by Sister Callista Roy, in particular, have received extensive application and appreciation in practice. Against the backdrop of this understanding, the current discussion evaluates the extent to which the two theories apply in care for breast cancer patients. To achieve this, the analysis first provides a brief description of breast cancer care, before summarizing the theories and their contextual relevance. A critical analysis of the two theories then follows, with the conclusion being a highlight of the most appropriate theory for the care of breast cancer.
Key words: breast cancer, theory, self-efficacy, nursing student, and clinical skill
Sample Answer for NU 500 Theory Evaluation Paper
Middle Range or Interdisciplinary Theory Evaluation
Clinical Practice Problem
Breast cancer is not only the commonest kind of cancer today, but also has the highest maternal mortality rate in the world amongst cancers (Jemal, 2011). Statistics cited by Mousavi et al. (2007) show that a quarter of all cancer deaths in women is attributable to breast cancer, with the highest toll experienced among women aged between 40 and 49 years. Among the leading carcinogens regarding breast cancer, as cited by Jemal (2011), are smoking, physical inactivity, and consumption of unhealthy diet. Valdivieso et al. (2012) posits that breast cancer survivors amongst women form the highest levels of cases wherein cancer patients have overcome it worldwide as compared to different types of the disease. Despite this, breast cancer remains a chronic disease often with patients suffering from non-medical as well as other medical complications (Loh & Quek, 2011) that may or may not be directly linked to the condition. Worth noting is that patients suffering from breast cancer have higher risks of morbidity, reduced quality of life and ted to experience substantial psychological and economic distress to self and to the close relatives. As such, effective interventions mechanisms become necessary.
Self-Efficacy Theory Summary
The social efficacy theory developed by Bandura is rooted on social cognitive theories and argues that individual behaviours are a factor of their thinking, belief and feeling systems (Bandura, 1977). Put simply, the theory argues that an individual’s psychological processes are cable of altering their behaviours, which in turn affects their levels of self-efficacy. Loh and Quek (2011) postulate that self-efficacy in the context under discussion connotes the capacity of a person to achieve a certain level of performance that will have a positive impact on the choices and decisions that they make in life. According to Porter (2008), such beliefs have different influences on a person’s thoughts, feelings, motivation, and behaviour, which in turn shapes their perceptions of challenges they may encounter, in addition to their capacity to handle situations as well as complete a given set of tasks or goals.
Bandura (1977) asserts that the belief systems have the potential to impact the human behaviour via elements inclusive of the cognitive, affective, selection as well as motivational procedures. For instance, in relation to cognition, significantly lower self-efficacy may compel an individual to perceive tasks or challenges as substantially harder to execute or overcome more than they actually are. As relates to motivation, individuals that ooze confidence are going to mostly regard complex situations as challenges for them to surmount and ones to be endured but not as threatening conditions that have to be handled via avoidance. As such, they have an implicit motivation to accomplish such tasks as may arise, or overcome any challenges they may encounter. On the other hand, those with comparatively lower levels of confidence tend to perceive difficulties as monster threats worth avoiding (Bandura, 1977).
Roy’s Adaptation Model Summary
The adaption model, on the other hand, begins by first acknowledging the inevitability of illness in human life, and proceeds to explain the extent to which individuals adapt to changes in their environments. Roy (2015) states that his model the human self as a singular system that is characterized by interconnected facets inclusive of the biological, social, as well as psychological aspects. Life is therefore a struggle by the individual to achieve and maintain a balance these components and the stimuli that originate from the external environment. Accordingly, this external environment may be comprised of such actors as social, family support systems, clinical experiences, among others. Hence, the constant nature of a person’s interaction with the environment offers their body system the capacity to adopt the psychological, social, as well as biological processes in order to survive in varied environments. However, Bredow and Peterson (2009) warn that this adaptation is constricted to a certain level, which is indicative of the need for some necessary stimuli for the production of a positive response by the body.
Naga, Al-atiyyat and Kassab (2013) reveal the existence of four adaptation types in the present theory such as the interdependence modes, the physiologic, the self-concept, as well as the role function. As per the physiologic mode, the process of adaptation seeks to maintain the individual’s wellbeing, which explains the reasons as to why it encompasses basic needs and nutrition.
A nurse will therefore assess the extent to which the individual is fulfilling his/her survival needs. The self-concept mode, on the other hand, refers to the wellbeing of the psychic ability and includes elements such as personal values as well as self-perceptions. According to the role function mode, the social wellbeing of a person becomes overriding. Social adaptation, thus, is the process through which one gets used to the different role adjustments over time. When one retires, for example, changes in lifestyle follow almost immediately. On the other hand, the interdependence mode, considers the necessity for social adaptation as the overriding factor in human survival. It acknowledges the fact that individuals depend on others for different needs, such as assistance, affection, and attention, among others. Thusly, as Peterson and Bredow note, the goals of nursing care based on these four modes has everything to do with promoting adaptation and health, as well as enhancing the quality of life. A nurse must therefore evaluate the wellbeing of the patient dependent upon these modes prior to offering care as the outcomes serve to inform care decisions.
Theory Framework Evaluation
Fawcet and Garity (2009) note that a possibility exists to analyze a model relative to its external and internal criticisms. Internal criticism, to begin with, encompasses such elements as clarity (how easy it is for one to understand he theory); consistency (provision of relevant definitions as well as repeated utilization of fundamental conceptions); adequacy (the relevance of the theory to its elemental speciality); logical development (the extent of congruence between the theory’s reasoning and conclusions); and the development level of the theory (available reliable research concerning a given concept). Contrarily, external criticism examines such aspects as utility (which is theory application); significance (contribution of the theory to knowledge development); reality convergence (examination of the model premised on the elemental interpretations, presuppositions, as well as principles); complexity (the ease with which the theory elucidates the correlation between variables); discrimination (whether the model extricates nursing from other areas of study); as well as scope (entire set of behaviours elucidated by the concept) (Fawcett & Garity, 2009).
Self-Efficacy Theory
Clarity: Clarity: The fundamental concepts of the theory, namely human behaviour and self-efficacy, have been sufficiently covered with comprehensive explanations for easy understanding (Fawcett & Garity, 2009). Despite the fact that theory has its origin in field of psychology, its constructs are easy to understand, even by those lacking in significant knowledge as it relates to psychology.
Logical development: The above theory draws from the constructs of social cognitive theory and is exceptionally logical (Fawcett & Garity, 2009). Its key concepts, the tools used to measure self-efficacy, as well as deductions made from it have served to advance and elucidate the extent of influence of self-efficacy.
Adequacy: Fawcet and Garity (2009) argue that the model accurately indicates the manner in which self-efficacy influences behavioural alterations in human beings. Furthermore, the theory has an extensive scope that covers nearly all populations. In fact, it is applicable to patients of varied ages, different genders, varying educational backgrounds and social statuses, distinct racial cultures and ethnicities, among other areas.
Consistency: There is exceptional consistency in defining key concepts that guide its application; and as Fawcett and Garity (2009) assert, the intrinsic consistency of a model offers invaluable insight regarding the comprehensiveness of a theory’s defining aspects. These defining concepts include social cognitive theory, self-efficacy, as well as social learning. Ideally, greater understanding of a theory can be achieved when the concepts are defined uniformly.
Level of theory development: The theory under discussion emerged more than four decades ago, and as Fawcett and Garity observe, a number of studies covering different settings have been done to ascertain its relevance and effectiveness. Among such ground-breaking studies are Jeng & Braun’s (1994), Robinson-Smith, Johnston & Allen’s (2000) Fawcett & Garity (2009) itself, as well as Porter’s (2008). As such, it fits perfectly in the category of well-developed middle range theories.
Complexity: Fawcet and Garity (2009) assert that the behaviours demonstrated by human beings as well as the concept of self-efficacy are the two major foundations of the model. In addition to explaining the correlation between the above variables, the theory further shows the manner in which extrinsic factors associate with self-efficacy, as well as the relationship between self-efficacy vis-a-vis such concepts as cognition, choice, affective, and motivational processes.
Discrimination: The social cognitive theory on which it relies has application in multifarious disciplines, including within the nursing context where it applies to the care and chronic conditions’ management (Fawcett & Garity, 2009; Porter et al., 2008; Loh & Quek, 2011; Robinson-Smith, Johnston & Allen, 2000; Marks, Allegrante & Lorig, 2005).
Reality convergence: Alluding to an earlier assertion, the theory’s key proposition is that personal efficacy has extensive influence on human behaviour and thoughts (Fawcett & Garity, 2009). Studies by Marks, Allegrante and Lorig (2005), Porter et al. (2008), Robinson-Smith, Johnston and Allen (2000), Fawcett and Garity, (2009) as well as Loh and Quek (2011) have all confirmed this association. In part, the propositions of the theory explains the often observed trend where successful individuals attribute their breakthroughs to hard moments. Nevertheless, Kardong-Edgren (2013) presents an alternative thinking concerning the same, arguing that there may exit a substantial disconnection between the propositions of the theory and actual practice situation, that may result in some level of false efficacy.
Utility: It is evident that the self-efficacy theory has been quite resourceful in informing research and practice in clinical care (Fawcett & Garity, 2009). For instance, independent research conducted by Porter et al. (2008) and Fawcett & Garity, (2009) examined cancer pain management, while that of Robinson-Smith, Johnston and Allen (2000) used he theory to investigate the association between quality of life outcomes and depression among patients that previously suffered a stroke. Drawing from the findings of these studies, it is evident that the theory has proved its effectiveness concerning changes in behaviour and improved patient outcomes.
Significance: The study by Fawcett and Garity (2009) also established, from their assessment, that the theory clearly addresses issues of practice and reliably contributes to the advancement of nursing knowledge. Providing hope and assurance to patients is a crucial construct of nursing practice since the resulting patient optimism and self-confidence are positively correlated to quality patient outcomes. Furthermore, the theory and its underlying constructs have informed the development of other care models, much to the benefit of nursing practise.
Scope: According to Fawcett and Garity (2009), the theory covers a fairly broad coverage in patient care. Its applicability spans several practice settings and disciplines.
Roy’s Adaptation Model
Clarity: According to Fawcett and Garity (2009), the major concepts that define this theory are the person, the environment, health, the concept of adaptation and health. While the theory has attempted to provide ample explanations on these concepts, their complexity, alongside the theory’s near exclusive focus on nursing may make it slightly harder to comprehend minus possessing substantial knowledge concerning the field.
Logical development: Fawcett and Garity (2009) also note that the theory anchors on the bio-psycho-social concepts, with the related developments and deductions all demonstrating the theory’s logical reliability. Further, the theory elucidates on how environmental interactions and influence facilitates adaptation.
Adequacy: The theory defines adaptation as the unavoidable result of a person’s continuous interaction with a dynamic environment (Fawcett & Garity, 2009). Its adequacy is caused by the fact that its applicability captures multifarious populations.
Consistency: According to Fawcett and Garity, the theory provides ample definition of its key concepts listed above, and is easily accessible in available literature, something that makes it equally easy to understand. Arguably, the constructs of this theory are clearer compared to those of the self-efficacy theory, which gives it added strength.
Theory’s level of development: Roy’s adaptation model emerged almost at a similar time as the self-efficacy theory did, with the latter only arriving slightly later (Fawcett & Garity, 2009). A closer examination of the latter theory reveals some level of influence in its construction from Roy’s model. Nonetheless, various researches have been undertaken to investigate the efficacy of the theory, namely Purcell and Dorsey (1990), Rogers and Keller (2009), Piazza et al. (1992), Weiss et al. (1994), Ursavas, Karayurt and Iseri (2014), and Fawcett and Garity (2009). The richness of these studies demonstrates the sufficiency of the theory developed this far.
Complexity: Fawcett and Garity also outline the key variables associated with the theory, which include health, environment, the individual, nursing practice as well as the adaptation concept. The theory does explain the intimate association between the variables, and demonstrates the concept of person-environment interaction.
Discrimination: Fawcett and Garity further acknowledge that Roy’s model specifies the distinction between nursing and other practice disciplines, something that the self-efficacy theory does not achieve. This also confirms the fact that the theory was developed specifically for application in the nursing context.
Reality convergence: The model under discussion asserts the inevitability of health as well as illness in life, arguing that both conditions draw from the fact that human beings constantly respond to changes within the environment in a bid to attain balance between the internal system of the person as well as their external environment (Fawcett & Garity, 2009). Different research studies have successfully sought to validate this assertion, among them, Rogers and Keller (2009), Ursavas, Karayurt and Iseri (2014) as well as Fawcett and Garity (2009).
Utility: Based on the findings by Fawcett and Garity (2009), the model has been extensively influential in nursing research and practice over the years, and particularly so with chronic conditions. Studies by Rogers and Keller, (2009) and Fawcett and Garity (2009), for instance, have demonstrated the theory’s effectiveness in enabling older adults to benefit from physical activities. In their study, Ursavas, Karayurt and Iseri (2014) report of positive outcomes upon using the model to provide care to breast cancer patients.
Significance: The theory has also been resourceful in highlighting emergent issues in nursing practice, thereby contributing to the advancement of patient care (Fawcett & Garity, 2009). For instance, the particularly provides comprehensive guidelines used to assess the overall wellbeing of patients, alongside informing decisions made by care deliver personnel.
Scope: The theory, however, seems to have a comparatively restricted scope in comparison to the self-efficacy theory, given its restricted use to nursing care (Fawcett & Garity, 2009).
Selection of Appropriate Theory
Given their broad application, the two examined theories have delivered significant impacts in nursing research and practice since their respective development. As such, the process of determining the most appropriate model to adopt for a future study can be a daunting task. However, the two theories are almost equally rigorous when examined through the lenses of clarity, utility, significance, pragmatism, adequacy, logic and consistency, something that further makes it difficult to narrow down to one best choice. That notwithstanding, the self-efficacy theory seems to be the more appropriate when considering more intricate elements. For instance, unlike Roy’s adaptation model, the other theory seems to be somewhat comparatively less complex, which translates into easier application. Furthermore, despite its simplicity, it is as rigorous as any other model could be.
Equally important is the fact that the self-efficacy model is highly suitable for patients suffering from breast cancer, as well as for other chronic conditions. Studies have shown that the theory produces better outcomes when adopted by individuals with chronic conditions, particularly by enhancing their coping mechanisms and enabling them to establish some sort of control over their health statuses (Marks, Allegrante & Lorig, 2005). Further, greater confidence has been shown to produce better capability to overcome, hence the comparatively higher coping rates. No doubt that breast cancer is a scary condition with life-threatening consequences that often generates intense negative emotions and discomfort among those diagnosed. Often, this can make the patient anxious, confused, fearful and even overwhelmed with psychological distress; with most victims concerned of their chances of making a full recovery. Nevertheless, higher self-efficacy has the capacity to minimize the attendant psychological burden. Studies have demonstrated the correlation between higher individual confidence and the ability to adapt to stressors, which in turn helps minimize the symptomatology, reduce emotional distress and hopelessness, as well as ease the pain suffered by the patient (Robinson-Smith, Johnston & Allen, 2000; Marks, Allegrante & Lorig, 2005; Porter et al., 2008; Fawcett & Garity, 2009).
More contextualized breast cancer study by Loh & Quek’s (2011) revealed the effectiveness of a self-management schedule that relies on the notion of self-efficacy, specifically in as far as improving long-term coping behaviours. Simultaneously, positive patient outcomes can have positive impacts on the wellbeing of formal as well as informal caregivers (Fawcett & Garity, 2009; Porter et al., 2008). Precisely, a sense of fulfilment and joy among nurse caregivers often accompanies the result of a patient registering enhanced coping capacity a given chronic condition. Similarly, the patient’s immediate family members grow happier with the checked emotional displeasure. Further, this phenomenon reiterates the theory’s aptness in nursing practice, and in particular, in relation to the management of breast cancer.
Drawing on these observations and based on the findings by Robinson-Smith, Johnston and Allen (2000), there is need for caregivers to always inspire self-confidence in patients, nurture them towards long-term self-efficacy and to positively challenge their self-expectations. For breast cancer patients, care givers must seek to emphasize the importance of self-belief to their recovery. To achieve this, inspiring hope and offering assurance on their ability to overcome their respective conditions is essential. In fact, changes in cognitive processes and adjustments in an individual’s behaviour are highly dependent on both the concept of self-perception as well as on influences of the environment (Bandura, 1977). Put simply, self-efficacy is also a factor of external elements, such as the attributes observed in those with whom one interacts. Consequently, if clinical practitioners reiterate the fact that such chronic diseases as breast cancer can easily be overcome, then patients have a high likelihood of exemplifying self-efficacy behaviours. They would begin to visualize themselves getting healed and will consequently adhere to medications as well as adopt behavioural guidelines as offered by the care giver.
Effectively, behavioural change emerges as a fundamental aspect to prioritize when managing as well as treating a patient with breast cancer. To this end, the role of healthcare practitioners is crucial to helping patients adjusts their thinking and behaviours. Yet, for any intervention mechanism designed to overcome unhealthy behaviours, an apt theoretical framework must be present. Jeng and Braun (1994) show the reliability and effectiveness of the self-efficacy theory when employed by caregivers with a comprehensive understanding of the complexity of human behaviour. Ideally, the theory enables the nurse practitioner to translate observations and modify behaviours, and leverage the same in predicting patient behaviour. This enables the practitioner to develop the cancer patient’s personal efficacy.
Conclusion
Based on the arguments presented in this paper, a comparison of the self-efficacy theory and Roy’s model reveals that when it comes to management of breast cancer care in females, the former is the most suitable approach. The model makes it easier for the practitioner to inspire the cancer patient to develop enhanced self-confidence, which is necessary in order to conquer the condition. More importantly, the model allows care givers to evaluate a cancer patient’s self-efficacy level at the onset of service delivery. This in turn informs present and future decision-making hence the practice research. Thus, when seeking to provide adequate care to women suffering from breast cancer, self-efficacy forms an integral component of treatment and recovery, hence must be integrated into the process of caregiving for better coping outcomes.
References
Bandura A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191-215.
Fawcett, J. & Garity, J. (2009). Evaluation of middle-range theories. Evaluating research for evidence-based nursing. Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis.
Jemal A., Bray, F., Center, M., Ferlay, J., Ward, D., & Forman, D. (2011). Global cancer statistics. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 61(2), 69-90.
Jeng, C., & Braun, L. (1994). Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 12(4), 425-436.
Kardong-Edgren, S. (2013). Bandura’s self-efficacy theory … something is missing. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 9(9), e327-e328.
Loh, S., & Quek K. (2011). Cancer-behaviour-coping in women with breast cancer: Effect of a cancer self-management program. International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research, 1(2), 84-88.
Marks, R., Allegrante, J., & Lorig, K. (2005), R., Allegrante, J., & Lorig, K. (2005). A review and synthesis of research evidence for self-efficacy-enhancing interventions for reducing chronic disability: implications for health education practice (part II). Health Promotion Practice, 6(2), 148-156.
Mousavi, S., Montazeri, A., Mohaqheqhi, M., Jarrahi, A., Harirchi, I., Najafi, M., & Ebrahimi, M. (2007). Breast cancer in Iran: an epidemiological review. The Breast Journal, 13(4), 383-391.
Naga, B., Al-atiyyat, N., & Kassab, M. (2013). Pain Experience among patients receiving cancer treatment: a review. Journal of Palliative Care & Medicine, 3, 148.
Peterson, S., & Bredow, T. (2009). Middle range theories: application to nursing research. U.S.: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Piazza, D., Foote, A., Holcombe, J., Harris, M., & Wright, P. (1992). The use of Roy’s adaptation model applied to a patient with breast cancer. European Journal of Cancer Care, 1(4), 17-22.
Porter, L., Keefe, F., Garst, J., McBride, C., & Baucom, D. (2008). Self-efficacy for managing pain, symptoms, and function in patients with lung cancer and their informal caregivers: Associations with symptoms & distress. Pain, 137(2), 306-315.
Purcell, S., & Dorsey, K. (1990). Roy’s adaptation model: clinical applications. In D. Cormack and W. Reynolds (eds.), Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing: Theory and Practice. New York: Springer, pp. 346-353.
Robinson-Smith, G., Johnston, M., & Allen J. (2000). Self-care self-efficacy, quality of life, and depression after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81(4), 460-464.
Rogers, C., & Keller, C. (2009). Roy’s adaptation model to promote physical activity among sedentary older adults. Geriatric Nursing, 30(2), 21-26.
Roy, C. (2015). Roy adaptation model. In. K. Masters (ed.), Nursing Theories: A Framework for Professional Practice. 2nd ed. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning, pp. 113-125.
Ursavas, F., Karayurt, O., & Iseri, O. (2014). Nursing approach based on Roy adaptation model in a patient undergoing breast conserving surgery for breast cancer. Journal of Brest Health, 10, 134-140.
Valdivieso, M., Kujawa, A., Jones, T., & Baker, L. (2012). Cancer survivors in the United States: a review of the literature and a call to action. International Journal of Medical Sciences, 9(2), 163- 173.
Weiss, M., Hastings, W., Holly, D., & Craig, D. (1994). Using Roy’s adaptation model in practice: nursing perspectives. Nursing Science Quarterly, 7(2), 80-86.