scholarly journals Suffering measurement instruments in palliative care: protocol for a systematic psychometric review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e027524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Gutiérrez Sánchez ◽  
Rafael Gómez García ◽  
Isabel María López-Medina ◽  
Antonio I Cuesta-Vargas
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Advanced Disease ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Selection Of

IntroductionThe prevention and relief of suffering are regarded as a goal at the end of life; therefore, suffering assessment at the end of life is essential. In this regard, we need instruments that allow us to evaluate this construct for gathering more evidence, as the assessment of suffering is increasingly used in research and the clinical setting. Many measures have been designed to assess this construct, and the selection of the most appropriate instrument is crucial. The aims of this systematic review are to (1) identify the measures assessing suffering in patients with advanced disease and their psychometric properties and (2) evaluate the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties.Methods and analysisThe protocol of this systematic review was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols Guidelines. A systematic psychometric review of measures assessing suffering in patients with advanced disease and their psychometric properties will be carried out according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). The search strategy will be performed following the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies. Searches will be conducted in Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medline, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, SciELO, Open Grey, Scopus, Web of Science and COSMIN database of systematic reviews, and it will be limited by time (1980–2018) and language (only literature in English and Spanish). Literature will be evaluated by two independent reviewers according to the COSMIN checklist, and measurement properties data of each study that meet the inclusion criteria will be scored independently by two researchers according to COSMIN quality ratings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not necessary for systematic review protocols. The results will be disseminated by publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018106488.

Instruments for Measuring Satisfaction With Physical Therapy Care: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 100 (9) ◽  
pp. 1690-1700
Author(s):  
Daniel Gutiérrez-Sánchez ◽  
David Pérez-Cruzado ◽  
Antonio I Cuesta-Vargas
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Selection Of

Abstract Objective Several instruments to measure patient satisfaction have been developed to assess satisfaction with physical therapy care. The selection of the most appropriate instrument is very important. The purpose of this study was to identify instruments for assessing satisfaction with physical therapy care and their psychometric properties and to evaluate the methodological quality of studies on psychometric properties. Methods A systematic search was conducted in ProQuest Medline, SciELO, ProQuest PsycINFO, Theseus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Articles published from 1990 to 2019, in English and Spanish, were used as limits. This systematic review followed the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards. The articles were evaluated by 2 independent reviewers using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments 4-point checklist. Eighteen studies were included. Results Nine instruments were found to be specifically designed to assess satisfaction with physical therapy care. The methodological quality of the studies was “fair” for most of the psychometric characteristics analyzed (43 items), with 24 properties scored as “poor,” 5 as “good,” and 3 as “excellent.” Conclusions Different instrument characteristics—such as the scope and population with which the instrument will be used, its dimensions, the number of items, and the evidence shown in the evaluation of each psychometric property—should be considered by clinicians and researchers to decide which instrument is the best to measure the construct of patient satisfaction with physical therapy. Impact Evaluating patient satisfaction is very useful in clinical practice at the hospital, community, and primary care levels. Physical therapist clinicians and researchers can use this systematic review to select instruments whose characteristics will best measure their patients’ satisfaction with physical therapy care.

scholarly journals Psychometric properties of self-reported financial toxicity measures in cancer survivors: a systematic review protocol using COSMIN methodology

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. e036365
Author(s):  
Zheng Zhu ◽  
Weijie Xing ◽  
Lucylynn Lizarondo ◽  
Jian Peng ◽  
Yan Hu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Public Healthcare ◽  
Financial Toxicity ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported

IntroductionDue to the higher costs associated with advancements in cancer treatment and longer duration of cancer survivorship, increasing financial toxicity has become a great threat to survivors, caregivers and public healthcare systems. Since accurate and reproducible measures are prerequisites for robust results, choosing an acceptable measure with strong psychometric properties to assess financial toxicity is essential. However, a description of the psychometric properties of existing measures is still lacking. The aim of this study is to apply COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology to systematically review the content and structural validity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of financial toxicity for cancer survivors.Methods and analysisPubMed/Medline, Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and Cochrane Library (Wiley) will be comprehensively searched from database inception to 15 November 2019. Studies that report the measurement properties of PROMs assessing financial toxicity for cancer survivors will be included. The evaluation of measurement properties, data extraction and data synthesis will be conducted according to the COSMIN methodology.Ethics and disseminationNo individual data are involved in this systematic review. The results will be disseminated to a clinical audience and policy-makers though peer-reviewed journals and conferences and will support researchers in choosing the best measure to evaluate the financial toxicity of cancer survivors.

COSMIN Checklist for Systematic Reviews of the Hospital Preparedness Instruments in Biological Events

2021 ◽  
pp. JNM-D-19-00097
Author(s):  
Mohsen Aminizadeh ◽  
Mehrdad Farrokhi ◽  
Abbas Ebadi ◽  
Gholam Reza Masoumi ◽  
Mehdi Beyrami-jam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Hospital Preparedness ◽  
Biological Event ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Selection Of

Background and PurposeThe purpose of this research was to evaluate the psychometric properties of hospital preparedness instruments in biological events. The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurements Instruments (COSMIN) checklist has been used to design the appropriate hospital preparedness instruments in these events.MethodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and ProQuest, Google Scholar for relevant literature until December 31, 2018, and the data were extracted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality of the identified studies was assessed per measurement property according to the COSMIN checklist. Twenty studies that met the inclusion criteria were included.ResultsThe result showed that none of the evaluated checklists and instruments included all dimensions required for an appropriate hospital preparedness evaluation. The results revealed that none of the included studies reported adequate information on all the measurement properties of the instruments studied as per the COSMIN criteria.ConclusionsThe information on their measurement properties was lacking. Thus, there was a need for evaluating measurement. However, a vital necessity is felt for developing an instrument with acceptable psychometric properties for measuring hospital preparedness in biological events. The present study provided improved clarity about the quality of currently available hospital preparedness instruments in the biological event and the results of this systematic review could be used to prepare a standardized instrument to evaluate hospital preparedness in biological disaster.

scholarly journals Nutritional Status Measurement Instruments for Diabetes: A Systematic Psychometric Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (16) ◽  
pp. 5719
Author(s):  
Pedro Montagut-Martínez ◽  
David Pérez-Cruzado ◽  
José Joaquín García-Arenas
Keyword(s):  
Nutritional Status ◽  
Dietary Intake ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Premature Death ◽  
Diabetes Mellitus Type 1 ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Individual Treatment ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Increased Risk

Background: Diabetes is a serious chronic disease associated with a large number of complications and an increased risk of premature death. A dietary evaluation is of utmost importance for health promotion, disease prevention and individual treatment plans in patients with diabetes. Methods: An exhaustive search was carried out in various databases—Medline, Web of Science, Open Gray Cochrane Library and Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN)—for systematic review of the measurement properties of instruments that evaluate the dietary intake of people with diabetes mellitus type 1 and/or 2 according to COSMIN standards. Results: Seven instruments were identified. There was no instrument measuring nutritional status for which all the psychometric properties were evaluated. The methodological quality for each of the psychometric properties evaluated was ‘inadequate’ or ‘doubtful’ for all instruments. The Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) evaluated the most psychometric characteristics and with a better score in terms of quality of the evidence. Conclusions: Several instruments have been developed for the evaluation of dietary intake in people with diabetes. Evaluation of this construct is very useful, both in clinical practice and in research, requiring new knowledge in this area. The FFQ is the best instrument available to assess dietary intake in people with diabetes.

scholarly journals Implementation outcome assessment instruments used in physical healthcare settings and their measurement properties: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e017972 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zarnie Khadjesari ◽  
Silia Vitoratou ◽  
Nick Sevdalis ◽  
Louise Hull
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Healthcare Settings ◽  
Implementation Outcomes ◽  
Psychometric Quality ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Selection Of

IntroductionOver the past 10 years, research into methods that promote the uptake, implementation and sustainability of evidence-based interventions has gathered pace. However, implementation outcomes are defined in different ways and assessed by different measures; the extent to which these measures are valid and reliable is unknown. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and appraise studies that assess the measurement properties of quantitative implementation outcome instruments used in physical healthcare settings, to advance the use of precise and accurate measures.Methods and analysisThe following databases will be searched from inception to March 2017: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. Grey literature will be sought via HMIC, OpenGrey, ProQuest for theses and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. Reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews will be hand searched. Three search strings will be combined to identify eligible studies: (1) implementation literature, (2) implementation outcomes and (3) measurement properties. Screening of titles, abstracts and full papers will be assessed for eligibility by two reviewers independently and any discrepancies resolved via consensus with the wider team. The methodological quality of the studies will be assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. A set of bespoke criteria to determine the quality of the instruments will be used, and the relationship between instrument usability and quality will be explored.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not necessary for systematic review protocols. Researchers and healthcare professionals can use the findings of this systematic review to guide the selection of implementation outcomes instruments, based on their psychometric quality, to assess the impact of their implementation efforts. The findings will also provide a useful guide for reviewers of papers and grants to determine the psychometric quality of the measures used in implementation research.Trial registration numberInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO):CRD42017065348.

scholarly journals Psychometric properties of quantitative sensory testing focusing on healthy and patients with shoulder pain: a systematic review protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 253
Author(s):  
Paraskevi Bilika ◽  
Konstantina Savvoulidou ◽  
Achilleas Paliouras ◽  
Zacharias Dimitriadis ◽  
Evdokia Billis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Shoulder Pain ◽  
Quantitative Sensory Testing ◽  
Somatosensory System ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Sensory Testing ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Level Of Evidence

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a battery of non-invasive psychophysical methods to assess the function of somatosensory system. Although the use of QST is widespread and several studies in patients with chronic shoulder pain have used it, the level of evidence for the psychometric properties has not been established. The aim of this protocol is to investigate, through a systematic review, the level of evidence for the psychometric properties of QST in the shoulder.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> For conducting and reporting this review the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) guidelines will be used. Nine databases including PubMed, Medline, AMED (via EBSCO), PEDRO, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, SportDiscus, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library will be searched for the period from their inception until September 2021. Two reviewers (BP and SK) will independently evaluate the retrieved articles (titles and abstracts) and the psychometric characteristics checklist based on the standards from the COSMIN. The modified grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used to assess the overall quality of the evidence.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Evaluation of the level of evidence for the psychometric properties of QST in the shoulder is an essential step for evidence-based assessment in clinical practice.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Trial registration:</strong> PROSPERO registration number is CRD42021232778.</p>

Measuring the teamwork performance of teams in crisis situations: a systematic review of assessment tools and their measurement properties

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 327-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvain Boet ◽  
Nicole Etherington ◽  
Sarah Larrigan ◽  
Li Yin ◽  
Hira Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Crisis Situations

BackgroundEducational interventions to improve teamwork in crisis situations have proliferated in recent years with substantial variation in teamwork measurement. This systematic review aimed to synthesise available tools and their measurement properties in order to identify the most robust tool for measuring the teamwork performance of teams in crisis situations.MethodsSearches were conducted in Embase (via OVID), PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Education Resources Information Center, Medline and Medline In-Process (via OVID) (through 12 January 2017). Studies evaluating the measurement properties of teamwork assessment tools for teams in clinical or simulated crisis situations were included. Two independent reviewers screened studies based on predetermined criteria and completed data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.ResultsThe search yielded 1822 references. Twenty studies were included, representing 13 assessment tools. Tools were primarily assessed in simulated resuscitation scenarios for emergency department teams. The Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM) had the most validation studies (n=5), which demonstrated three sources of validity (content, construct and concurrent) and three sources of reliability (internal consistency, inter-rater reliability and test–retest reliability). Most studies of TEAM’s measurement properties were at no risk of bias.ConclusionsA number of tools are available for assessing teamwork performance of teams in crisis situations. Although selection will ultimately depend on the user’s context, TEAM may be the most promising tool given its measurement evidence. Currently, there is a lack of tools to assess teamwork performance during intraoperative crisis situations. Additional research is needed in this regard.

scholarly journals School health assessment tools: a systematic review of measurement in primary schools

PeerJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. e9459
Author(s):  
Maryam Kazemitabar ◽  
Ali Moghadamzadeh ◽  
Mojtaba Habibi ◽  
Rezvan Hakimzadeh ◽  
Danilo Garcia
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Primary Schools ◽  
School Health ◽  
Health Assessment ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Cosmin Checklist

Background This systematic review aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of the school health’s assessment tools in primary schools through COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. We examined the studies that have addressed the measurement properties of school-health instruments to give a clear overview of the quality of all available tools measuring school health in primary schools. This systematic review was registered in PROPERO with the Registration ID: CRD42020158158. Method Databases of EBSCOhost, PubMed, ProQuest, Wily, PROSPERO, and OpenGrey were systematically searched without any time limitation to find all full-text English journal articles studied at least one of the COSMIN checklist measurement properties of a school-health assessment tool in primary schools. The instruments should be constructed based on a school health model. The eligible studies were assessed by COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist to report their quality of methodology for each measurement property and for the whole study by rating high, moderate or low quality. Results At the final screening just seven studies remained for review. Four studies were tool development, three of them were rated as “adequate” and the other study as “very good”; five studies examined the content validity, three of them were appraised as “very good”, and the two remaining as “inadequate”. All seven studies measured structural validity, three of them were evaluated as “very good”, three other were scored as “adequate”, and the last study as “inadequate”. All the seven studies investigated the internal consistency, five of them were assessed as “very good”, one was rated as “doubtful”, and the last one as “inadequate”. Just one study examined the cross-cultural validity and was rated as “adequate”. Finally, all seven studies measured reliability, two of them were rated as “very good” and the rest five studies were appraised as “doubtful”. All rating was based on COSMIN checklist criteria for quality of measurement properties assessment. Conclusion The number of studies addressing school health assessment tools was very low and therefore not sufficient. Hence, there is a serious need to investigate the psychometric properties of the available instruments measuring school health at primary schools. Moreover, the studies included in the present systematic review did not fulfill all the criteria of the COSMIN checklist for assessing measurement properties. We suggest that future studies consider these criteria for measuring psychometric properties and developing school health assessment tools.

scholarly journals Motor imagery ability assessments in four disciplines: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e023439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zorica Suica ◽  
Petra Platteau-Waldmeier ◽  
Szabina Koppel ◽  
Arno Schmidt-Trucksaess ◽  
Thierry Ettlin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Motor Imagery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis

IntroductionMotor imagery (MI) is a very popular and well-accepted technique in different disciplines. Originating from sport and psychology, MI is now also used in the field of medicine and education. Several studies confirmed the benefits of MI to facilitate motor learning and skill acquisition. The findings indicated that individual’s MI ability might influence the effectiveness of MI interventions. Over the last two centuries, researchers have developed several assessments to evaluate MI’s abstract construct. However, no systematic reviews (SR) exist for MI ability evaluation methods and their measurement properties.Methods and analysisThe SR will evaluate available MI ability assessments and their psychometric properties in four relevant disciplines: sports, psychology, medicine and education. This involves performing searches in SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science and ERIC. Working independently, two reviewers will screen articles for selection. Then all raw information will be compiled in an overview table—including the articles’ characteristics (eg, a study’s setting or the population demographics) and the MI ability assessment (psychometric properties). To evaluate the articles’ methodological quality, we will use the COSMIN checklist. Then we will evaluate all the included assessments’ quality and perform a best-evidence synthesis. Results of this review will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.Ethics and disseminationThe SR is based on published data, and ethical approval is not required. This review will provide information on assessment performance and equipment, as well as its main focus and usefulness. Furthermore, we will present the methodological quality of all the included articles and assess the included instruments’ quality. Ultimately, this will act as a valuable resource, providing an overview of MI ability assessments for individual clinical settings, treatment aims, and various populations. The SR’s final report will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017077004

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document