ABSTRACT
Background: Lifestyle medicine interventions have the potential to improve symptom management, daily function, and quality of life (QOL) in patients with advanced or terminal disease receiving palliative or hospice care. The goal of this review is to summarize the current state of the literature on this subject. Methods: The authors used a broad search strategy to identify relevant studies, reviews, and expert opinions, followed by narrative summary of available information. Results: Four main categories of lifestyle interventions feature prominently in the palliative care literature: exercise, nutrition, stress management, and substance use. High-quality studies in this vulnerable population are relatively sparse. Some interventions show promise. However, most show mixed results or inadequate evidence. For some interventions, risks in this generally frail population outweigh the benefits. Clinical decision making involves balancing research findings, including the risks and benefits of interventions, with a clear understanding of patients' prognosis, goals of care, and current physical, emotional, and spiritual state. Achieving optimum QOL, safety, and ethical care are emphasized. Conclusions: The use of lifestyle interventions in patients receiving palliative or hospice care is a complex undertaking, requiring tailoring recommendations to individual patients. There is potential for considerable benefits; however, more research is needed.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The Forced Choice Recognition (FCR) trial of the California Verbal Learning Test, 2nd edition, was designed as an embedded performance validity test (PVT). To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of classification accuracy against reference PVTs. METHODS: Results from peer-reviewed studies with FCR data published since 2002 encompassing a variety of clinical, research, and forensic samples were summarized, including 37 studies with FCR failure rates (N=7575) and 17 with concordance rates with established PVTs (N=4432). RESULTS: All healthy controls scored >14 on FCR. On average, 16.9% of the entire sample scored ≤14, while 25.9% failed reference PVTs. Presence or absence of external incentives to appear impaired (as identified by researchers) resulted in different failure rates (13.6% vs. 3.5%), as did failing or passing reference PVTs (49.0% vs. 6.4%). FCR ≤14 produced an overall classification accuracy of 72%, demonstrating higher specificity (.93) than sensitivity (.50) to invalid performance. Failure rates increased with the severity of cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of serious neurocognitive disorder, FCR ≤14 is highly specific, but only moderately sensitive to invalid responding. Passing FCR does not rule out a non-credible presentation, but failing FCR rules it in with high accuracy. The heterogeneity in sample characteristics and reference PVTs, as well as the quality of the criterion measure across studies, is a major limitation of this review and the basic methodology of PVT research in general. (JINS, 2016, 22, 851-858).
