scholarly journals Multidimensional instruments with an integral approach to identify frailty in community-dwelling people: protocol for a systematic psychometric review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e033160
Author(s):  
Juan José Zamora-Sánchez ◽  
Vicente Gea-Caballero ◽  
Iván Julián-Rochina ◽  
Lina Jódar-Fernández ◽  
Iris Lumillo-Gutiérrez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Integral Approach ◽  
Complex Nature ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Patient Consent

IntroductionAn increasing number of investigations highlight the complex nature of frailty; therefore, the use of multidimensional assessment instruments could be useful in clinical decision-making. Frail people are found mainly in the community setting which is why this is the ideal environment for early screening and intervention. For this purpose, it is necessary to have valid, time-effective and easy-to-use frailty assessment instruments. The aim of this review is to critically appraise, compare and summarise the quality of the measurement properties of all multidimensional instruments with an integral approach to identify frailty in community-dwelling people.Methods and analysisMedline, Psychological Information Database (PsycINFO) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) will be searched from their inception dates. We will also conduct searches in databases of grey literature. No limits will be applied for language. A highly sensitive validated search filter will be used for finding studies on measurement properties. An additional search including the names of the instruments found in the initial search will also be undertaken. Studies aiming at the development of a measurement instrument, the evaluation of one or more measurement properties or the evaluation of its interpretability will be included. The instrument should have an integral approach (physical, psychological and social) and it should measure all three domains. The context of use should be a community setting. Two reviewers independently will screen the references and assess the risk of bias by consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments checklist. To assess the overall evidence for the measurement properties of the identified instruments, the results of the different studies, adjusted for their methodological quality, will be combined.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval and patient consent are not required as this is a psychometric review based on published studies. The results of this review will be disseminated at conferences and published in an international peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019120212.

scholarly journals Measures of central sensitisation and their measurement properties in the adult musculoskeletal trauma population: a protocol for a systematic review and data synthesis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e023204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Middlebrook ◽  
Alison B Rushton ◽  
Nicola R Heneghan ◽  
Deborah Falla
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Central Sensitisation ◽  
Trauma Population ◽  
Musculoskeletal Trauma

IntroductionPain following musculoskeletal trauma is common with poor outcomes and disability well documented. Pain is complex in nature and can include the four primary mechanisms of pain: nociceptive, neuropathic, inflammatory and central sensitisation (CS). CS can be measured in multiple ways; however, no systematic review has evaluated the measurement properties of such measures in the musculoskeletal trauma population. This systematic review aims to evaluate the measurement properties of current measures of CS in this population.Methods/analysisThis protocol is informed and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-P. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ZETOC, Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar as well as key journals and grey literature will be searched in two stages to (1) identify what measures are being used to assess CS in this population and (2) evaluate the measurement properties of the identified measures. Two independent reviewers will conduct the search, extract the data, assess risk of bias for included studies and assess overall quality. The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of Health Measurement Instruments Risk of Bias Checklist and a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines will be used. Meta-analysis will be conducted if deemed appropriate. Alternatively, a narrative synthesis will be conducted and summarised per measurement property per outcome measure.Ethics and disseminationThis review will aid clinicians in using the most appropriate tool for assessing central sensitisation in this population and is the first step towards a more standardised approach in pain assessment. The results of this study will be submitted to a peer reviewed journal and presented at conferences.PROSPERO registrationnumberCRD42018091531.

scholarly journals Psychometric properties of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy: a COSMIN systematic review protocol

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett Williams ◽  
Bronwyn Beovich
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Jefferson Scale Of Empathy

Abstract Background Empathy is an important characteristic to possess for healthcare professionals. It has been found to improve communication between professionals and patients and to improve clinical health outcomes. The Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE) was developed to measure this quality and has been used extensively, and psychometrically appraised, with a variety of cohorts and in different cultural environments. However, no study has been undertaken to systematically examine the methodological quality of studies which have assessed psychometric factors of the JSE. This systematic review will examine the quality of published papers that have reported on psychometric factors of the JSE. Methods A systematic review of studies which report on the psychometric properties of the JSE will be conducted. We will use a predefined search strategy to identify studies meeting the following eligibility criteria: original data is reported on for at least one of the psychometric measurement properties described in the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist, examines the JSE in a healthcare cohort (using the student, physician or health profession versions of the JSE), and is published from January 2001 and in the English language. Conference abstracts, editorials and grey literature will be excluded. Six electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, PsychInfo, PubMed, Web of Science and CINAHL) will be systematically searched for articles meeting these criteria and studies will be assessed for eligibility by two review authors. The methodological quality of included papers will be examined using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Discussion A narrative description of the findings will be presented along with summary tables. Recommendations for use of the JSE with various cohorts and circumstances will be offered which may inform future research in this field. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018111412

scholarly journals Informant-based assessment instruments for dementia and their measurement properties in persons with intellectual disability: systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e040920
Author(s):  
Elisabeth L Zeilinger ◽  
Sophie Komenda ◽  
Irina Zrnic ◽  
Fabian Franken ◽  
Katharina Woditschka
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Developmental Disorders ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Functional Impairments ◽  
Global Risk ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement

IntroductionPersons with intellectual disability (ID) are at a higher risk of developing dementia than persons without ID, with an expected earlier onset. Assessment methods for the general population cannot be applied for persons with ID due to their pre-existing intellectual and functional impairments. As there is no agreed-upon measure to assess dementia in persons with ID, multiple instruments for this purpose have been developed and adapted in the past decades. This review aimed to identify all available informant-based instruments for the assessment of dementia in persons with ID, to evaluate and compare them according to their measurement properties, and to provide a recommendation for the most suitable instruments. Additionally, an overview of the amount and quality of research on these instruments will be provided.Methods and analysisThis review will be conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We will adhere to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines and use a set of characteristics developed for assessment instruments for persons with ID, the Characteristics of Assessment Instruments for Psychiatric Disorders in Persons with Intellectual Developmental Disorders. Two comprehensive, systematic literature searches will be applied in 10 international databases, including ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, OpenGrey and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Risk of bias and quality assessment will be done according to COSMIN guidelines. We will apply the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the overall quality of the available evidence.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics statement is needed for this study. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at international conferences.

scholarly journals Measurement properties of the craniocervical flexion test: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e019486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Xavier de Araujo ◽  
Giovanni Esteves Ferreira ◽  
Maurício Scholl Schell ◽  
Marcelo Peduzzi de Castro ◽  
Marcelo Faria Silva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Measurement Property ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Patient Consent ◽  
Flexor Muscles ◽  
Flexion Test

IntroductionNeck pain is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide and it accounts for high economic and societal burden. Altered activation of the neck muscles is a common musculoskeletal impairment presented by patients with neck pain. The craniocervical flexion test with pressure biofeedback unit has been widely used in clinical practice to assess function of deep neck flexor muscles. This systematic review will assess the measurement properties of the craniocervical flexion test for assessing deep cervical flexor muscles.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review that will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, PEDro, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus and Science Direct will be systematically searched from inception. Studies of any design that have investigated and reported at least one measurement property of the craniocervical flexion test for assessing the deep cervical flexor muscles will be included. All measurement properties will be considered as outcomes. Two reviewers will independently rate the risk of bias of individual studies using the updated COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments risk of bias checklist. A structured narrative synthesis will be used for data analysis. Quantitative findings for each measurement property will be summarised. The overall rating for a measurement property will be classified as ‘positive’, ‘indeterminate’ or ‘negative’. The overall rating will be accompanied with a level of evidence.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval and patient consent are not required since this is a systematic review based on published studies. Findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017062175.

scholarly journals Evaluating lower limb tendinopathy with Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (VISA) questionnaires: a systematic review shows very-low-quality evidence for their content and structural validity—part I

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasileios Korakakis ◽  
Argyro Kotsifaki ◽  
Manos Stefanakis ◽  
Yiannis Sotiralis ◽  
Rod Whiteley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Structural Validity ◽  
Cultural Validity ◽  
Quality Evidence

Abstract Purpose The Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (Achilles tendon—VISA-A, greater trochanteric pain syndrome—VISA-G, proximal hamstring tendinopathy—VISA-H, patellar tendon—VISA-P) questionnaires are widely used in research and clinical practice; however, no systematic reviews have formally evaluated their content, structural, and cross-cultural validity evidence. The measurement properties referring to content, structural and cross-cultural validity of the VISA questionnaires were appraised and synthesized. Methods The systematic review was conducted according to Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology. PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, SportsDiscus, grey literature, and reference lists were searched. Development studies and cross-cultural adaptations (12 languages) assessing content or structural validity of the VISA questionnaires were included and two reviewers assessed their methodological quality. Evidence for content (relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility), structural, and cross-cultural validity was synthesized. A modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was applied to evidence synthesis. Results The VISA-A presented very-low-quality evidence of sufficient relevance, insufficient comprehensiveness, and inconsistent comprehensibility. VISA-G displayed moderate-quality evidence for sufficient comprehensibility and very-low-quality evidence of sufficient relevance and comprehensiveness. The VISA-P presented very-low-quality evidence of sufficient relevance, insufficient comprehensiveness, and inconsistent comprehensibility, while VISA-H presented very-low evidence of insufficient content validity. VISA-A displayed low-quality evidence for structural validity concerning unidimensionality and internal structure, while VISA-H presented low-quality evidence of insufficient unidimensionality. The structural validity of VISA-G and VISA-P were indeterminate and inconsistent, respectively. Internal consistency for VISA-G, VISA-H, and VISA-P was indeterminate. No studies evaluated cross-cultural validity, while measurement invariance across sexes was assessed in one study. Conclusions Only very-low-quality evidence exists for the content and structural validity of VISA questionnaires when assessing the severity of symptoms and disability in patients with lower limb tendinopathies. Level of evidence IV. Registration PROSPERO reference—CRD42019126595.

scholarly journals Apathy Measures in Older Adults and People with Dementia: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties Using the COSMIN Methodology

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Clare Burgon ◽  
Sarah Elizabeth Goldberg ◽  
Veronika van der Wardt ◽  
Catherine Brewin ◽  
Rowan H. Harwood
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Evaluation Procedure ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
Patient Reported

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Apathy is highly prevalent in dementia and is also seen in mild cognitive impairment and the general population. Apathy contributes to failure to undertake daily activities and can lead to health problems or crises. It is therefore important to assess apathy. However, there is currently no gold standard measure of apathy. A comprehensive systematic review of the measurement properties of apathy scales is required. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42018094390). MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched for studies that aimed to develop or assess the validity or reliability of an apathy scale in participants over 65 years, living in the community. A systematic review was conducted in line with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments procedure for reviewing patient-reported outcome measures. The studies’ risk of bias was assessed, and all relevant measurement properties were assessed for quality. Results were pooled and rated using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation procedure. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Fifty-seven publications regarding 18 measures and 39 variations met the eligibility criteria. The methodological quality of individual studies ranged from inadequate to very good and measurement properties ranged from insufficient to sufficient. Similarly, the overall evidence for measurement properties ranged from very low to high quality. The Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES) and Lille Apathy Rating Scale (LARS) had sufficient content validity, reliability, construct validity, and where applicable, structural validity and internal consistency. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Numerous scales are available to assess apathy, with varying psychometric properties. The AES and LARS are recommended for measuring apathy in older adults and people living with dementia. The apathy dimension of the commonly used Neuropsychiatric Inventory should be limited to screening for apathy.

scholarly journals The German RECAP questionnaire: linguistic validation and cognitive debriefing in German adults with self-reported atopic eczema and parents of affected children

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michaela Gabes ◽  
Christina Tischer ◽  
Anne Herrmann ◽  
Laura Howells ◽  
Christian Apfelbacher
Keyword(s):  
Atopic Eczema ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Recall Period ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
German Population ◽  
German Version ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP) is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) assessing eczema control. Long-term control of eczema is one of the four core outcome domains for atopic eczema trials. This instrument has been recently developed in the UK. Objective This study aimed to translate the English RECAP into German and test its content validity in a German population with self-reported atopic eczema. Methods A six-step procedure including two forward and one backward translations, two consensus decisions and an expert review was performed to obtain a German version of RECAP. We conducted semi-standardized cognitive interviews with adults with atopic eczema (n = 7) and parents having children affected by this disease (n = 5). A “think-aloud” method was used and aspects of comprehensibility, comprehensiveness and relevance according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria were examined. Interviews were coded using qualitative content analysis. Results No particular linguistic problems were encountered during forward-backward translation. Minor wording changes were made as required. The title was adjusted to a more familiar German term of the disease (which is ‘Neurodermitis’). The recall period was rephrased from ‘over the last week’ to ‘over the last seven days’ since there was a different cultural understanding of the time frame. Regarding content validity, the items of the German RECAP were considered to be comprehensible, comprehensive and relevant for the participants and parents of affected children. The participants understood the instruction and considered the one-week recall period and the response options as appropriate. Conclusions A German version of RECAP that is linguistically equivalent to the original version is now available but further assessment of its measurement properties is needed.

scholarly journals A more comprehensive approach offering instruments in one portal to facilitate higher uptake

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Rossmann ◽  
F De Bock
Keyword(s):  
Health Promotion ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Comprehensive Approach ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Activity Promotion

Abstract The good practice portal of the Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA) consists of a nationwide collection of projects and interventions to promote the health of socially disadvantaged groups at community/setting level. An exchange platform (inforo) is also offered via the operating agency, although its use is still limited. The results of the evaluation of the platform suggest that the provision of practical projects and exchange of knowledge alone is not sufficient to support policy makers and practitioners who want to promote health in the community/setting. There is a need for advice on needs assessment, selection and appropriate implementation of health promotion measures. A comprehensive approach currently being tested in the field of activity promotion for older people is the provision of a web-based “toolbox” comprising the following tools: assessment instruments for analysing the need for health promotion measures, a user-friendly intervention/project database and broader evidence synthesis documents, as well as information on project management (organisational, legal, financial). Following the example of other best practice portals, a ranking methodology was developed to make the level of effectiveness of interventions visible and the evaluation requirements transparent. Evidence synthesis documents provide an entry point to learn more generally what works in a particular area of health promotion. In order to make the “toolbox” accessible to policy-makers and practitioners, information from previous studies was used in the development with regard to content and graphical presentation. BZgA is currently working on integrating evidence into the good practice portal. The evaluation of the toolbox in a small area of health promotion will provide initial insights into the inclusion of evidence and its added value. This presentation will conclude with a discussion of possibilities for improvement, challenges and limitations of this approach.

scholarly journals Enhancing Our Understanding of Transitional Care Programs

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 136-137
Author(s):  
Katherine McGilton ◽  
Shirin Vellani ◽  
Alexandra Krassikova ◽  
Alexia Cumal ◽  
Sheryl Robertson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Transitional Care ◽  
Discharge Planning ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Occupational Therapists ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Hospitalized Older Adults

Abstract Many hospitalized older adults experience delayed discharge. Transitional care programs (TCPs) provide short-term care to these patients to prepare them for transfer to nursing homes or back to the community. There are knowledge gaps related to the processes and outcomes of TCPs. We conducted a scoping review following Arksey & O’Malley’s framework to identify the: 1) characteristics of older patients served by TCPs, 2) services provided within TCPs, and 3) outcomes used to evaluate TCPs. We searched bibliographic databases and grey literature. We included papers and reports involving community-dwelling older adults aged ≥ 65 years and examined the processes and/or outcomes of TCPs. The search retrieved 4828 references; 38 studies and 2 reports met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in Europe (n=19) and America (n=13). Patients admitted to TCPs were 59-86 years old, had 2-10 chronic conditions, 26-74% lived alone, the majority were functionally dependent and had mild cognitive impairment. Most TCPs were staffed by nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, social workers and physicians, and support staff. The TCPs provided 5 major types of services: assessment, care planning, treatment, evaluation/care monitoring and discharge planning. The outcomes most frequently assessed were discharge destination, mortality, hospital readmission, length of stay, cost and functional status. TCPs that reported significant improvement in older adults’ functions (which was the main goal of the TCPs) included multiple services delivered by multidisciplinary teams. There is a wide variation in the operationalization of TCPs within and between countries.

scholarly journals Instruments for measuring nursing research competence: a protocol for a scoping review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e042325
Author(s):  
Qirong Chen ◽  
Chongmei Huang ◽  
Aimee R Castro ◽  
Siyuan Tang
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Target Population ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Nursing Research ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Research Competence ◽  
Scoping Reviews

IntroductionNursing research competence of nursing personnel has received much attention in recent years, as nursing has developed as both an independent academic discipline and an evidence-based practiing profession. Instruments for appraising nursing research competence are important, as they can be used to assess nursing research competence of the target population, showing changes of this variable over time and measuring the effectiveness of interventions for improving nursing research competence. There is a need to map the current state of the science of the instruments for nursing research competence, and to identify well validated and reliable instruments. This paper describes a protocol for a scoping review to identify, evaluate, compare and summarise the instruments designed to measure nursing research competence.Methods and analysisThe scoping review will be conducted following Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework and Levac et al’s additional recommendations for applying this framework. The scoping review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. The protocol is registered through the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ksh43/). Eight English databases and two Chinese databases will be searched between 1 December 2020 and 31 December 2020 to retrieve manuscripts which include instrument(s) of nursing research competence. The literature screening and data extraction will be conducted by two researchers, independently. A third researcher will be involved when consensus is needed. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology will be used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies on measurement properties of the instruments, as well as the quality of all the instruments identified.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not needed. We will disseminate the findings through a conference focusing on nursing research competence and publication of the results in a peer-reviewed journal.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document