Search

ObjectivesWe developed the Health-Friendly Activity Index (HFAI) to comprehensively measure the health-friendly activities of corporations or organisations. We validated the developed tool and reported on its use as an assessment tool to improve consumers’ health-related outcomes.DesignThis was a cross-sectional study.SettingDevelopment of the HFAI questionnaire followed a three-phase process: item generation, item construction and validation with field testing. Using relevance and feasibility criteria, we developed a 105-item questionnaire with six domains (Governance and Infrastructure, Needs Assessment, Planning, Implementation, Monitoring and Feedback, and Outcomes).ParticipantsTo assess the sensitivity and validity of the questionnaire, the HFAI and Contribution Assessment Tool for Consumer’s Health (CATCH) were administered to 302 participants (151 employers and 151 employees) from 151 Korean companies.Primary outcome measuresThe CATCH measured the contribution of each company to the physical, mental, social and spiritual health of its consumers. To estimate the reliability and validity of all six HFAI domains and their respective scales, Cronbach’s α coefficients and correlation coefficients were used.ResultsEach domain and scale of the HFAI exhibited a Cronbach’s α coefficient between 0.80 and 0.98 for the employers and employees. The overall HFAI and its six domains correlated significantly and positively with all health outcomes such as physical, mental, social and spiritual status scores evaluated using the CATCH (Spearman’s correlation range: 0.37–0.68).ConclusionThe HFAI, a unique assessment tool with acceptable psychometric properties, can help corporate managers assess their health-friendly activities.

Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials have reported controversial findings regarding the effects of melatonin on pain reduction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of melatonin on pain among adults using a meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RDBPCTs). PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the bibliographies of relevant articles were searched up to February 2020. Two of the authors independently evaluated eligibility of the studies based on the pre-determined criteria and extracted data. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the pain score change were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis. Out of 463 that met the initial criteria, a total of 30 trials, which involved 1967 participants with 983 in an intervention group and 984 in a control group, were included in the final analysis. In a random-effects meta-analysis, the use of melatonin reduced chronic pain in all the trials (5 studies, SMD &minus, 0.65, 95% CI &minus, 0.96 to &minus, 0.34, I2 = 57.2%) and high-quality trials (4 studies, SMD &minus, 0.62, 95% CI &minus, 1.01 to &minus, 0.23, I2 = 49.3%). Moreover, the use of melatonin significantly reduced acute postoperative pain (11 studies, SMD &minus, 0.82, 95% CI &minus, 1.40 to &minus, 0.25, I2 = 93.0%). However, the subgroup meta-analysis of high-quality RDBPCTs showed no significant association between them (6 studies, SMD &minus, 0.21, 95 % CI &minus, 0.66 to 0.24, I2 = 82.4%). The current study suggests that melatonin might be used in treatment of chronic pain, while there is no sufficient evidence for acute postoperative or procedural pain. Further trials are warranted to confirm its analgesic effect.

Background Although international guidelines recommend palliative care approaches for many serious illnesses, the palliative needs of patients with serious illnesses other than cancer are often unmet, mainly due to insufficient prognosis-related discussion. We investigated physicians' and the general public's respective attitudes toward prognostic disclosure for several serious illnesses. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 928 physicians, sourced from 12 hospitals and the Korean Medical Association, and 1,005 members of the general public, sourced from all 17 administrative divisions in Korea. Results For most illnesses, most physicians (adjusted proportions – end-organ failure, 99.0%; incurable genetic or neurologic disease, 98.5%; acquired immune deficiency syndrome [AIDS], 98.4%; stroke or Parkinson's disease, 96.0%; and dementia, 89.6%) and members of the general public (end-organ failure, 92.0%; incurable genetic or neurologic disease, 92.5%; AIDS, 91.5%; stroke or Parkinson's disease, 92.1%; and dementia, 86.9%) wanted to be informed if they had a terminal prognosis. For physicians and the general public, the primary factor to consider when disclosing terminal status was “the patient's right to know his/her condition” (31.0%). Yet, the general public was less likely to prefer prognostic disclosure than physicians. Particularly, when their family members were patients, more than 10% of the general public did not want patients to be informed of their terminal prognosis. For the general public, the main reason for not disclosing prognosis was “psychological burden such as anxiety and depression” (35.8%), while for the physicians it was “disclosure would have no beneficial effect” (42.4%). Conclusion Most Physicians and the general public agreed that disclosure of a terminal prognosis respects patient autonomy for several serious illnesses. The low response rate of physicians might limit the generalizability of the results., Graphical Abstract

The goal of palliative care is to maximize the quality of life and thus maintain the dignity of patients facing problems associated with a life-threatening illness. The Patient Dignity Inventory (PDI) is an instrument used to measure various sources of distress that can impact patients' sense of dignity at the end of life.We aimed to obtain a Korean translation of the PDI (PDI-K) and evaluate its psychometric properties in patients with advanced cancer.Translation and cultural adaptation of the PDI were performed to obtain the Korean version. In a sample of 131 inpatients and outpatients with advanced cancer, psychometric properties, including factor structure, internal consistency, and concurrent validity, were examined. Concurrent validity was evaluated using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the 12-item Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being.Cronbach's α for the PDI-K was 0.96. Four factors were identified by exploratory factor analysis, accounting for 68.7% of the overall variance: Dependency and Physical Symptoms, Psychological Distress, Existential Distress, and SocialSupport. Concurrent validity was confirmed by significant correlations between PDI-K and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (r = 0.40 to 0.59, P 0.001), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (r = 0.78 to 0.81, P 0.001), and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being (r = -0.32 to -0.57, P 0.001).Our findings indicate that the PDI-K is a valid and reliable instrument to measure dignity-related distress in patients with advanced cancer. This tool provides a four-factor Korean language alternative to the PDI.