The aim of this study was to evaluate some features of article titles from open access journals and to assess the possible impact of these titles on predicting the number of article views and citations. Research articles (n = 423, published in October 2008) from all Public Library of Science (PLoS) journals and from 12 Biomed Central (BMC) journals were evaluated. Publication metrics (views and citations) were analyzed in December 2011. The titles were classified according to their contents, namely methods-describing titles and results-describing titles. The number of title characters, title typology, the use of a question mark, reference to a specific geographical region, and the use of a colon or a hyphen separating different ideas within a sentence were analyzed to identify predictors of views and citations. A logistic regression model was used to identify independent title characteristics that could predict citation rates. Short-titled articles had higher viewing and citation rates than those with longer titles. Titles containing a question mark, containing a reference to a specific geographical region, and that used a colon or a hyphen were associated with a lower number of citations. Articles with results-describing titles were cited more often than those with methods-describing titles. After multivariate analysis, only a low number of characters and title typology remained as predictors of the number of citations. Some features of article titles can help predict the number of article views and citation counts. Short titles presenting results or conclusions were independently associated with higher citation counts. The findings presented here could be used by authors, reviewers, and editors to maximize the impact of articles in the scientific community.

Patient-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.

Doctors who work at cancer hospitals are at high risk of developing emotional distress. This study evaluated the prevalence of burnout, anxiety, and depression in a sample of oncologists of various specialties and sought to identify how much of this distress is explained by specific pre-established characteristics. This cross-sectional study used online surveys. Burnout was measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), and anxiety and depression were measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The variables associated with p-values < 0.10 in the univariate analyses were included in blocks of hierarchical binary logistic regression models to identify the predictors of burnout, depression, and anxiety. Of the 227 physicians (response rate = 70.5%), 132 (58.1%) were identified as having burnout (high emotional exhaustion [EE] and depersonalization [DP]); furthermore, 28 (12.3%) had depression (HADS-D ≥ 11), and 44 (19.4%) had anxiety (HADS-A ≥ 11). The block of perceptions related to the workplace explained 22.4%, 7.7%, and 10.6% of the variances of burnout, depression, and anxiety, respectively. On the other hand, the outside-of-work characteristics block explained only 3.1%, 13.4%, and 3.4% of the variances of burnout, depression, and anxiety, respectively. Work-related stressors are associated with burnout, but few are associated with anxiety and depression. Outside-of-work characteristics explained little of the distress reported by physicians. Strategies focused on perceptions of professional recognition and lower workloads that stimulate positive relationships between doctors and other health professionals are desirable in oncological context.

To develop and validate a Portuguese version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) in Brazilian patients with advanced cancer. The ESAS was translated and then back translated into Portuguese in accordance with international guidelines. The final version was approved by an Expert Committee after pilot testing on 24 advanced cancer patients. Subsequently, we evaluated the time to complete the assessment, the number of unanswered items, internal consistency, convergent validity, and known-group validity in a sample of 249 advanced cancer patients who completed the ESAS along with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). A total of 90 clinically stable patients were retested after 4 to 96 hours (test-retest reliability), and 80 patients answered the ESAS after 21 (±7) days to measure scale responsiveness using an anchor-based method. The ESAS was completed in a mean time of only 2.2 minutes. The internal consistency was good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.861), and the removal of single items did not change the overall alpha value. For convergent validity, Spearman’s correlation coefficients between the ESAS symptom scores and the corresponding EORTC QLQ-C30 and ESS symptom scores ranged between 0.520 (95% CI = 0.424–0.605) and 0.814 (95% CI = 0.760–0.856), indicating moderate to strong correlations. Test-retest reliability values were considered adequate, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.758 (95% CI = 0.627–0.843) to 0.939 (95% CI = 0.905–0.960). ESAS is a feasible, valid and reliable multi-symptom assessment instrument for use in Brazil.

The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and potential benefit of a brief psychosocial intervention based on cognitive-behavioral therapy performed in addition to early palliative care (PC) in the reduction of depressive symptoms among patients with advanced cancer. An open-label randomized phase II clinical trial with two intervention arms and one control group. Patients with advanced cancer starting palliative chemotherapy and who met the selection criteria were included. The participants were randomly allocated to three arms: arm A, five weekly sessions of psychosocial intervention combined with early PC; arm B, early PC only; and arm C, standard cancer treatment. Feasibility was investigated by calculating rates (%) of inclusion, attrition, and contamination (% of patients from Arm C that received PC). Scores of depression (primary aim), anxiety, and quality of life were measured at baseline and 45, 90, 120, and 180 days after randomization. From the total of 613 screened patients (10.3% inclusion rate), 19, 22, and 22 patients were allocated to arms A, B, and C, respectively. Contamination and attrition rates (180 days) were 31.8% and 38.0%, respectively. No interaction between the arms and treatments were found. Regarding effect sizes, there was a moderate benefit in arm A over arms B and C in emotional functioning (−0.66 and −0.61, respectively) but a negative effect of arm A over arm C in depression (−0.74). Future studies to be conducted with this population group need to revise the eligibility criteria and make them less restrictive. In addition, the need for arm C is questioned due to high contamination rate. The designed psychosocial intervention was not able to reduce depressive symptoms when combined with early PC. Further studies are warrant to evaluate the intervention on-demand and in subgroups of high risk of anxiety/depression. Clinical Trials identifier NCT02133274 . Registered May 6, 2014.