Background/Objectives: Treatment for laryngeal cancer often impacts voice, swallowing, communication, and quality of life. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to evaluate survivorship, but their application and connection with objective functional measures vary widely. The objective was to explore how PROMs are used in laryngeal cancer research, identify the functional areas they assess, analyze their link with objective clinical outcomes, and identify methodological gaps in current studies. Methods: This scoping review followed PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Searches were conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science from their start until April 2026. Included studies involved adults with laryngeal cancer reporting PROMs and/or objective functional outcomes. Data on study features, PROM tools, evaluated domains, and how PROMs relate to objective outcomes were extracted and summarized descriptively. Results: Ninety-five studies with 10,807 participants were included. Most were observational (84.2%) and conducted at a single center (72.6%). Voice-related outcomes were the most common (86.3%), followed by psychological (72.6%) and swallowing outcomes (65.3%). Less frequently assessed were nutritional (22.1%) and supportive care domains (41.1%). The Voice Handicap Index family was the most used PROM group (30.5%). Over half the studies reported PROMs and objective measures separately without statistical integration (51.6%), while only 13.7% performed analytical integration, and none used predictive multivariable models. Significant variation existed in PROM choices, assessed domains, and integration approaches. Conclusions: PROM use in laryngeal cancer survivorship research is heterogeneous and predominantly focused on voice-related outcomes. Limited analytical integration with objective measures hampers a comprehensive understanding of recovery. There is a need for standardized, multidimensional assessment frameworks that include functional, nutritional, psychosocial, and objective outcomes to effectively support patient-centered survivorship care and rehabilitation planning.

Background/Objective: Asthma-related quality of life is related to multiple clinical, physiological, and behavioral factors. Nonetheless, the domain-specific associations of asthma control, inhaler adherence, lung function, and demographic characteristics remain poorly understood. This study aimed to examine the adjusted associations of asthma control, inhaler adherence, lung function, and age with individual domains of asthma-related quality of life. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study included 92 adults with asthma who demonstrated correct inhaler technique and adequate knowledge of their prescribed inhaler regimen. Asthma control was measured using the Asthma Control Test (ACT), inhaler adherence using the Test of Adherence to Inhalers (TAI), and quality of life using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). Pulmonary function was determined through spirometry. Spearman correlation analyses were initially conducted to identify associations between variables. Subsequently, separate multivariable linear regression models were created for each AQLQ domain, including ACT score, TAI score, age, and FEV₁ % predicted as predictors. Results: A total of 92 adult patients with asthma were studied. Asthma control was significantly positively correlated with all AQLQ domains (all p < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, ACT had the largest absolute standardized coefficient within each of the four domain-specific models (standardized β range: 0.339–0.791). After adjustment, age was associated with the activity limitation and symptom domains, whereas FEV₁ % predicted was associated only with the environmental stimuli domain. Inhaler adherence showed an inverse association with emotional functioning in the fully adjusted model (B = −0.094, 95% CI −0.158–−0.031; p = 0.0038). However, this association was absent in the bivariate analysis and in a sensitivity model excluding ACT (B = −0.015, 95% CI −0.067–0.037; p = 0.562), suggesting a possible suppression effect. Conclusions: ACT showed the largest standardized association within each domain-specific model, although the magnitude of its associations with the symptom and activity-limitation domains may partly reflect conceptual overlap between the instruments. The inverse TAI–emotional-functioning coefficient was model-dependent, did not meet the conservative multiplicity benchmark, and should be considered exploratory and hypothesis-generating. Additionally, lung function and age showed domain-specific associations, highlighting the need for a comprehensive, multidimensional approach in asthma management.

Background/Objectives: Modifiable lifestyle factors are established determinants of venous thromboembolism risk, but their relationship with the severity and early course of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is poorly characterized, and no validated Romanian-language instrument captures these domains in the acute PE setting. This protocol describes a prospective observational study with two distinct components: (i) a measurement component that develops and validates the Pulmonary Embolism Lifestyle and Nutrition Questionnaire (PE-LNQ), a composite patient-completed instrument, and (ii) a clinical component that analyzes the associations between lifestyle factors, routine clinical and laboratory data, and the severity and early outcomes of acute PE. Methods: Phase 1 comprises cross-cultural adaptation, content validation, piloting, and COSMIN-based psychometric evaluation. Its primary endpoints are test–retest reliability (ICC ≥ 0.70) and confirmation of ≥75% of a priori construct-validity hypotheses, including convergent validity against measured anthropometry and routine biomarkers. Phase 2 enrolls consecutive adults with CTPA-confirmed acute PE in a staged design (minimum 220 patients single-center; approximately 400 with a planned multicenter extension). The primary clinical endpoint is intermediate-/high-risk PE (vs. low risk) by sPESI/PESI, with the ordinal PESI class (I–V) as the key secondary endpoint. Severity data and a pre-specified panel of routine admission laboratory parameters are extracted from the medical record without study-specific sampling; patients are followed for in-hospital, 3-, and 6-month adverse events. The confirmatory analysis is multivariable logistic regression; ordinal, survival, incremental-value, and biomarker analyses are pre-specified as secondary or exploratory. Expected Results: The PE-LNQ is expected to show adequate reliability and validity, and less favorable lifestyle profiles to be associated with higher severity class and more early adverse events. Conclusions: This study will deliver a validated, freely reusable instrument and clarify the prognostic relevance of modifiable lifestyle factors, supporting their integration into risk assessment and secondary prevention.

Background/Objectives: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), whose most severe manifestation is pulmonary embolism (PE), is the third most common acute cardiovascular disorder, and many of its risk factors≠—obesity, physical inactivity, smoking, and unfavorable dietary patterns—are modifiable. No validated instrument is currently available to assess knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) regarding PE among adults in Romania, and the burden of self-reported thromboembolic risk factors in community settings has not been described with standardized measures. This protocol describes the development and psychometric validation of the PE-KAP-RO questionnaire, an integrated assessment tool comprising three scored KAP scales, three embedded validated lifestyle instruments, and an exploratory, unweighted VTE risk-factor burden index. No participants had been enrolled and no data had been collected at the time of submission; all procedures are therefore described as planned. Methods: The study comprises two phases. Phase 1 (development) includes qualitative concept elicitation with members of the target population, guideline- and theory-anchored item generation, expert content validation quantified by the content validity index, and pilot testing with cognitive debriefing (n ≈ 30). Phase 2 is a cross-sectional field validation in at least 450 adults (≥18 years) from Western Romania—with recruitment continuing toward 600 where feasible—through combined in-person (quota-guided) and online sampling that includes healthcare professionals, with test–retest re-administration in a subsample of at least 60 participants after 14 ± 4 days. Physical activity, diet, and nicotine dependence will be measured with the IPAQ-SF, MEDAS, and FTND. Sample size is justified separately for each analysis (precision of proportions, correlation and regression power, events per variable, split-sample factor analysis, item response theory calibration, and reliability estimation). Measurement properties will be evaluated against pre-specified acceptance criteria: item difficulty 0.20–0.80 (a screening range interpreted together with discrimination) and corrected item–total correlations ≥ 0.30; internal consistency (KR-20/Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega) 0.70–0.95; test–retest ICC ≥ 0.70 and item-level weighted kappa ≥ 0.60; structural validity by split-sample exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (CFI/TLI ≥ 0.90, RMSEA ≤ 0.08, SRMR ≤ 0.08); item response theory calibration with formal model comparison and differential item functioning screening; construct validity requiring confirmation of ≥75% of a priori hypotheses; floor/ceiling effects < 15%; and measurement invariance across sex, age group, and administration mode. Expected Results: The study will deliver a validated Romanian-language instrument, a structured characterization of PE-related knowledge, attitudes, and preventive practices, and the distribution of self-reported risk factors in the study sample. Conclusions: PE-KAP-RO is intended as a standardized assessment tool for PE-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices; the risk-factor burden index is descriptive and does not estimate VTE probability; any future predictive tool would require a separate cohort followed for incident VTE. Reporting follows the STROBE recommendations and COSMIN-based methodology; the protocol is presented prior to participant enrollment.