Purpose
Sarcopenia is significantly associated with frailty, readmission, and mortality in patients with heart failure. This review aims to provide an overview of the literature on sarcopenia in individuals with heart failure.
Methods
A comprehensive literature review was conducted regarding the current state of knowledge on assessment tools for the diagnosis, prognosis, and optimal management of sarcopenia in patients with heart failure.
Results
Sarcopenia can be defined as the loss of muscle mass with low muscle strength and/or poor physical performance. Sarcopenia has been officially listed as a disease in the eighth revision of the Korean Classification of Diseases in 2021. The causes of sarcopenia in patients with heart failure are multifactorial, including chronic inflammation, hormonal imbalances, nutritional deficiencies, low muscle blood flow, and endothelial dysfunction. The management of sarcopenia is primarily focused on exercise and/or nutritional management because there is no specific pharmacological therapy to treat sarcopenia.
Conclusion
Healthcare professionals should be aware of the significance of early detection and timely management of sarcopenia to avoid physical disability, long-term institutional care, and mortality in individuals with heart failure. Clinical trials are required to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions including exercise and nutrition, alone or in combination, on sarcopenia in patients with heart failure. In addition, more research is required to identify multidimensional risk factors and diagnostic biomarkers for sarcopenia.

Purpose
This narrative review aims to provide an introduction and overview of dyadic research within the context of chronic illness. In addition, some methodological considerations and future directions for conducting dyadic research are presented.
Methods
The focus of this review is on adult participants in dyads and with chronic illness based on the previous studies and literatures on dyadic science.
Results
Theory of Dyadic Illness Management and Dyadic Regulation-Connectivity Model (DR-CM) may be appropriate for performing dyadic research. At present, there is a lack of qualitative and quantitative knowledge on the dyadic approach for research on chronic diseases. Dyadic health interventions for building collaborative relationships within a dyad may be beneficial to improve dyadic health outcomes. This article addressed some of the challenges regarding recruitment, data collection, and analysis when it comes to planning dyadic research pertaining to chronic illnesses.
Conclusion
Healthcare professionals should prioritize needs and preferences at the dyadic level when designing effective chronic disease management. Particularly, it is critical to regularly monitor the dyadic relationships or type of dyadic care during illness trajectories. More research should be undertaken on patient-family caregiver dyads in chronic care, considering the various types of chronic diseases and cultural diversities.

Purpose
The purpose of this study was to assess the research performance during Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among nursing researchers. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted for Korean Society of Adult Nursing where 103 subjects participated from April 15 to May 14, 2021. The survey tool developed by researchers had 32 items including difficulties in performing research activities, perception of the impact of COVID-19 on research validity, and three open-ended questions. Results: In the research planning phase, 88 subjects (90.7%) reported difficulties in the recruitment plan and 83 subjects (89.3%) reported difficulties selecting a research design. In the recruitment and data collection phase, 85 subjects (88.6%) had difficulties accessing data collection site and 78 subjects (85.7%) had difficulties in face-to-face data collection. In the provision of intervention phase (for experimental study), 26 subjects (66.7%) reported that they should have changed the method of delivery of intervention. In research administration and manpower management, 62 subjects (75.6%) reported difficulties in face-to-face meeting. In research outcome management, 65 subjects (85.5%) reported that they should have changed the way of research-related events. Lastly, 80 subjects (81.6%) perceived that difficulties caused by COVID-19 impacted research validity. Conclusion: Majority of participants perceived that the difficulties in research activities may decrease research validity. To ensure research quality during COVID-19 pandemic, we should recognize potential threats to research validity and actively pursue adaptable innovations of research designs and data collection methods.