Cross-cultural validation of self-reported measurement instruments for research is a long and complex process, which involves specific risks of bias that could affect the research process and results. Furthermore, it requires researchers to have a wide range of technical knowledge about the translation, adaptation and pre-test aspects, their purposes and options, about the different psychometric properties, and the required evidence for their assessment and knowledge about the quantitative data processing and analysis using statistical software. This article aimed: 1) identify all guidelines and recommendations for translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation within the healthcare sciences; 2) describe the methodological approaches established in these guidelines for conducting translation, adaptation, and cross-cultural validation; and 3) provide a practical guideline featuring various methodological options for novice researchers involved in translating, adapting, and validating measurement instruments. Forty-two guidelines on translation, adaptation, or cross-cultural validation of measurement instruments were obtained from “CINAHL with Full Text” (via EBSCO) and “MEDLINE with Full Text”. A content analysis was conducted to identify the similarities and differences in the methodological approaches recommended. Bases on these similarities and differences, we proposed an eight-step guideline that includes: a) forward translation; 2) synthesis of translations; 3) back translation; 4) harmonization; 5) pre-testing; 6) field testing; 7) psychometric validation, and 8) analysis of psychometric properties. It is a practical guideline because it provides extensive and comprehensive information on the methodological approaches available to researchers. This is the first methodological literature review carried out in the healthcare sciences regarding the methodological approaches recommended by existing guidelines.

Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA) is a reliable, non-invasive, objective, and cost-effective body composition assessment method, with high reproducibility. This scoping review aims to evaluate the current scientific and clinical evidence on BIA for body composition assessment in oncology patients, under active treatment. Literature search was conducted through MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science databases, following PRISMA-ScR Guidelines. Inclusion criteria comprised studies reporting the use of BIA for body composition evaluation in adults with cancer diagnosis. Studies including non-cancer pathology or only assessing nutritional status were excluded. This scoping review comprised a total of 36 studies: 25 were original studies including 18 prospective studies, six cross-sectional studies and one retrospective study and 11 were systematic reviews. Population size for the included original articles ranged from 18 to 1217 participants, comprising a total of 3015 patients with cancer with a mean baseline Body Mass Index (BMI) ranging from 20.3 to 30.0 kg/m² and mean age ranging between 47 and 70 years. Review articles included a total of 273 studies, with a total of 78,350 participants. The current review considered studies reporting patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) (n = 8), breast cancer (BC) (n = 4), esophageal cancer (EC) (n = 2), liver cancer (n = 2), pancreatic cancer (PC) (n = 3), gastric cancer (GC) (n = 3), colorectal cancer (CRC) (n = 8), lung cancer (LC) (n = 1), skin cancer (SK) (n = 1) and multiple cancer types (n = 6). BIA is a suitable and valid method for the assessment of body composition in oncology. BIA-derived measures have shown good potential and relevant clinical value in preoperative risk evaluation, in the reduction of postoperative complications and hospital stay and as an important prognostic indicator in persons with cancer. Future research on the diagnostic value and clinical applications of BIA and BIA-derived phase angle (PhA) should be conducted in order to predict its impact on patient survival and other clinical outcomes.

Palliative care patients have been associated with a high probability of having depression and spiritual distress. However, there is a gap in research about the clinical indicators that can promote an effective differential diagnosis of depression and spiritual distress. This study aimed to identify the prevalence and the clinical indicators of depression and spiritual distress in palliative patients in primary care. An observational and cross-sectional study was conducted in 2016 in a Portuguese primary care unit. From a General Practitioners patients’ file of 1457 adult patients, a sample of 30 palliative patients was recruited throughout two steps: (1) selection of patients with chronic disease criteria; (2) selection of patients with Prognostic Indicator Guidance criteria. Exclusion criteria included cognitive impairment and psychotic disorders. Participants completed the self-assessment Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy—Spiritual Well-Being Scale (FACIT-Sp12) scales, which were sealed in opaque envelopes. Clinical data collection used semi-structured interviews for the diagnosis of depression and spiritual distress. The prevalence of depression was 23% (n = 7), while the prevalence of spiritual distress was 23% (n = 7). Four patients (13%) fulfilled both the depression and the spiritual distress criteria. Depression and spiritual distress seem to be both linked to the spiritual dimensions of the human being, but seem to differ in the dimensions of suffering and pharmacologic treatment.

Non-communicable chronic diseases (NCCDs) are the main cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Demographic aging has resulted in older populations with more complex healthcare needs. This necessitates a multilevel rethinking of healthcare policies, health education and community support systems with digitalization of technologies playing a central role. The European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Aging (A3) working group focuses on well-being for older adults, with an emphasis on quality of life and healthy aging. A subgroup of A3, including multidisciplinary stakeholders in health care across Europe, focuses on the palliative care (PC) model as a paradigm to be modified to meet the needs of older persons with NCCDs. This development paper delineates the key parameters we identified as critical in creating a public health model of PC directed to the needs of persons with NCCDs. This paradigm shift should affect horizontal components of public health models. Furthermore, our model includes vertical components often neglected, such as nutrition, resilience, well-being and leisure activities. The main enablers identified are information and communication technologies, education and training programs, communities of compassion, twinning activities, promoting research and increasing awareness amongst policymakers. We also identified key ‘bottlenecks’: inequity of access, insufficient research, inadequate development of advance care planning and a lack of co-creation of relevant technologies and shared decision-making. Rethinking PC within a public health context must focus on developing policies, training and technologies to enhance person-centered quality life for those with NCCD, while ensuring that they and those important to them experience death with dignity.

CONTEXT: Healthcare-associated infection represents the most frequent adverse event during care delivery. Medical advances like percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy have brought improvement on quality of life to patients but an increased risk of healthcare-associated infection. Predictive risk factors for peristomal wound infection are largely unknown but evidence suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis and preventive strategies related to infection control may reduce infection rates. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to evaluate the global prevalence rate of peristomal infection. Secondary objectives were to characterise the positive culture results, to evaluate the prophylactic antibiotic protocol and to identify potential risk factors for peristomal infection. METHODS: Retrospective study of 297 patients with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy performed at a general hospital between January 2004 and September 2010. Patients received prophylactic cefazolin before the endoscopic gastrostomy procedure. Medical records were reviewed for demographic data, underling disease conditions to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and patient potential intrinsic risk factors. Statistical analysis was made with the statistical program SPSS 17.0. RESULTS: A total of 297 percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes were inserted. Wound infection occurred in 36 patients (12.1%). Staphylococcus aureus methicillin resistant was the most frequently isolated microorganism (33.3%) followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (30.6%). The incidence rate had been rising each year and differ from 4.65% in 2004/2007 to 17.9% in 2008/2010. This finding was consistent with the increasing of prevalence global infection rates of the hospital. Most of the infections (55.6%) were detected in the first 10 days post procedure. There was no significant difference in age, body mass index values, mean survival time and duration of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding between patients with and without periostomal infection. Institutional factors, namely global prevalence infection rates and the endemic character of Staphylococcus aureus methicillin resistant, play an important role in peristomal infection rates. Traditional antibiotic prophylaxis with cefazolin is not adequate due to the prevalence of resistant organisms. CONCLUSIONS: Peristomal infection is a frequent problem with clinical impact in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy patients and should be considered a healthcare associated infection. The antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens using cephalosporins are not adequate and need to be reviewed due to the high prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus methicillin resistant and other resistant organisms in hospitals and nursing homes.