Obesity does not seem to play a negative role by interfering in the improvement of the periodontal clinical response or decreasing circulating proinflammatory cytokine levels after periodontal treatment.

BackgroundPatient-reported outcome validation needs to achieve validity and reliability standards. Among reliability analysis parameters, test-retest reliability is an important psychometric property. Retested patients must be in a clinically stable condition. This is particularly problematic in palliative care (PC) settings because advanced cancer patients are prone to a faster rate of clinical deterioration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methods by which multi-symptom and health-related qualities of life (HRQoL) based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been validated in oncological PC settings with regards to test-retest reliability.MethodsA systematic search of PubMed (1966 to June 2013), EMBASE (1980 to June 2013), PsychInfo (1806 to June 2013), CINAHL (1980 to June 2013), and SCIELO (1998 to June 2013), and specific PRO databases was performed. Studies were included if they described a set of validation studies. Studies were included if they described a set of validation studies for an instrument developed to measure multi-symptom or multidimensional HRQoL in advanced cancer patients under PC. The COSMIN checklist was used to rate the methodological quality of the study designs.ResultsWe identified 89 validation studies from 746 potentially relevant articles. From those 89 articles, 31 measured test-retest reliability and were included in this review. Upon critical analysis of the overall quality of the criteria used to determine the test-retest reliability, 6 (19.4%), 17 (54.8%), and 8 (25.8%) of these articles were rated as good, fair, or poor, respectively, and no article was classified as excellent. Multi-symptom instruments were retested over a shortened interval when compared to the HRQoL instruments (median values 24 hours and 168 hours, respectively; p = 0.001). Validation studies that included objective confirmation of clinical stability in their design yielded better results for the test-retest analysis with regard to both pain and global HRQoL scores (p < 0.05). The quality of the statistical analysis and its description were of great concern.ConclusionTest-retest reliability has been infrequently and poorly evaluated. The confirmation of clinical stability was an important factor in our analysis, and we suggest that special attention be focused on clinical stability when designing a PRO validation study that includes advanced cancer patients under PC.

The results of the present study indicated that S/R are a coping strategy frequently used by FCs of individuals with advanced cancer. The perceptions of the FCs interviewed in the present study corresponded to the four distinct categories related to spirituality and religiousness.

Detailed psychometric property data using the EORTC QLQ-C30 in Brazil are added by this study. In addition, we demonstrated that this instrument is in general reliable and valid regardless of the patient educational level.

This study investigated whether spirituality/religiosity (S/R) plays an important role in the lives of cancer patients and in the work of health professionals who provide care for these patients. The correlations between spiritual quality of life (QOL) and the other QOL domain scores of patients and health professionals were also assessed. Moreover, QOL domain scores were compared between patients and health professionals. In this cross-sectional study, 1050 participants (525 oncology patients and 525 health professionals) were interviewed. Quality of life was assessed with the World Health Organization quality of life spiritual, religious, and personal beliefs (WHOQOL-SRPB). To compare the groups with respect to the instruments’ domains, a quantile regression and an analysis of covariance model were used. The WHOQOL-Bref and WHOQOL-SRPB domains were correlated by performing Pearson and partial correlation tests. It was demonstrated that 94.1% of patients considered it important that health professionals addressed their spiritual beliefs, and 99.2% of patients relied on S/R to face cancer. Approximately, 99.6% of the patients reported that S/R support is necessary during cancer treatment; 98.3% of health professionals agreed that spiritual and religious support was necessary for oncology patients. Positive correlations between spiritual QOL and the other QOL domains were observed. When compared among themselves, patients exhibited significantly higher levels of spiritual QOL. In conclusion, S/R was an important construct in the minds of cancer patients and health professionals. Both groups often use S/R resources in their daily lives, which seems to positively affect their perceptions of QOL. Further studies are needed to determine how health professionals effectively address S/R during oncology practice.