ArticlePloS one2026
HF-OCAQ: Oral comfort assessment in heart failure patients.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oral discomfort is common among patients with heart failure (HF), with the potential to compromise nutritional intake, communication, and health-related quality of life. Existing oral assessment tools are predominantly clinician-administered and focused on objective pathology, thus failing to adequately capture patients' subjective experiences of oral comfort. A patient-reported instrument specifically designed for HF populations is lacking. To develop and preliminarily validate a novel PROM, the HF Patients' Oral Comfort Assessment Questionnaire (HF-OCAQ), designed to multidimensionally assess perceived oral comfort in hospitalized patients with HF. An initial item pool was generated through literature review, qualitative patient interviews, and expert consultation, guided by Kolcaba's Comfort Theory. Content validity was evaluated using a two-round Delphi process. A pretest was conducted to assess feasibility and clarity. The questionnaire was then administered to hospitalized patients with HF from three general hospitals between June and September 2020. Psychometric comprised assessments of content validity indices, internal consistency reliability, criterion-related validity against the Beck Oral Assessment Scale (BOAS) using Pearson's correlation, and structural validity via exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using a common-factor model. A total of 190 valid questionnaires were included in the final analysis. The final HF-OCAQ consisted of 24 items. Content validity indices were high (I-CVI range: 0.833-1.000; S-CVI/UA: 0.875; S-CVI/Ave: 0.979). Internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach's α = 0.810). Criterion-related validity showed a weak but statistically significant correlation with BOAS scores (r = 0.233, p < 0.05), consistent with the conceptual distinction between subjective comfort and objective oral status. Exploratory factor analysis supported a four-factor structure that was theoretically coherent and aligned with the proposed multidimensional construct of oral comfort. The HF-OCAQ was developed and preliminarily validated as a patient-reported instrument for assessing perceived oral comfort in hospitalized patients with HF. The findings provide initial evidence supporting its content validity, internal consistency, and structural validity. Further studies, including confirmatory factor analysis, test-retest reliability, and assessment of responsiveness to clinical change, are warranted before broader clinical and research application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.