Assessing Momentary Well-Being in People Living With Dementia: A Systematic Review of Observational Instruments

Optimizing the possibility to lead good lives is at the core of treatment and care for people with dementia. This may be monitored by assessing well-being and quality of life. However, cognitive impairment following dementia may complicate recall-based assessment with questionnaires, and proxy-ratings from family-caregivers do not correspond well to self-reports. Thus, using observational measures represents a potentially advanced option. Systematic reviews evaluating measurement properties, interpretability and feasibility of observational instruments assessing well-being in people living with dementia are lacking. Thus, this review performed systematic searches to find peer reviewed validated instruments of relevance in the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL and ProQuest. Twenty-two instruments assessing well-being were included for evaluation of measurement properties based on the systematic approach of the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). The evaluation included risk of bias on study level, and assessment of measurement properties on instrument level including content validity, construct validity, structural validity, internal consistency, measurement invariance, cross-cultural validity, measurement error and inter-rater/intra-rater/test–retest reliability and responsiveness. Additionally, the feasibility and interpretability of the measures were evaluated. No single instrument could be recommended based on existing publications. Thus, we provide general recommendations about further assessment and development of these instruments. Finally, we describe the most promising instruments and offer guidance with respect to their implementation and use in clinical and research contexts.

Download Full-text

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

Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders ◽

10.1159/000515678 ◽

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

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.

Download Full-text

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

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042325 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

What is the role of locoregional anesthesia in breast surgery? A systematic literature review focused on pain intensity, opioid consumption, adverse events, and patient satisfaction.

10.21203/rs.3.rs-32193/v3 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Pasquale Sansone ◽

Luca Gregorio Giaccari ◽

Mario Faenza ◽

Pasquale Di Costanzo ◽

Sara Izzo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Patient Satisfaction ◽

Breast Surgery ◽

The United States ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Anesthetic Techniques ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Cosmin Checklist ◽

Locoregional Anesthesia ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Background: Breast surgery in the United States is common. Pain affects up to 50% of women undergoing breast surgery and can interfere with postoperative outcomes. General anesthesia is the conventional, most frequently used anaesthetic technique. Various locoregional anesthetic techniques are also used for breast surgeries. A systematic review of the use of locoregional anesthesia for postoperative pain in breast surgery is needed to clarify its role in pain management.Objectives: To systematically review literature to establish the efficacy and the safety of locoregional anesthesia used in the treatment of pain after breast surgery.Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Trials Register were systematically searched in Mars 2020 for studies examining locoregional anesthesia for management of pain in adults after breast surgery. The methodological quality of the studies and their results were appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and specific measurement properties criteria, respectively.Results: Nineteen studies evaluating locoregional anesthesia were included: 1058 patients underwent lumpectomy/mastectomy, 142 breast augmentation and 79 breast reduction. Locoregional anesthesia provides effective anesthesia and analgesia in the perioperative setting, however no statistically significant difference emerged if compared to other techniques. For mastectomy only, the use of locoregional techniques reduces pain in the first hour after the end of the surgery if compared to other procedures (p = 0.02). Other potentially beneficial effects of locoregional anesthesia include decreased need for opioids, decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting, fewer complications and increased patient satisfaction. All this improves postoperative recovery and shortens hospitalization stay. In none of these cases, locoregional anesthesia was statistically superior to other techniques.Conclusion: The results of our review showed no differences between locoregional anesthesia and other techniques in the management of breast surgery. Locoregional techniques are superior in reducing pain in the first hour after mastectomy.

Download Full-text

Tools to Assess the External Validity of Randomized Controlled Trials in Systematic Reviews: a Systematic Review of Measurement Properties

10.21203/rs.3.rs-830181/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Andres Jung ◽

Julia Balzer ◽

Tobias Braun ◽

Kerstin Luedtke

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

External Validity ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background: Internal and external validity are the most relevant components when critically appraising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews. However, there is no gold standard to assess external validity. This might be related to the heterogeneity of terminology as well as to unclear evidence of the measurement properties of available tools. The aim of this review was to identify tools to assess the external validity of RCTs in systematic reviews and to evaluate the quality of evidence regarding their measurement properties.Methods: A two-phase systematic literature search was performed in four databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO via OVID, and CINAHL via EBSCO. First, tools to assess the external validity of RCTs were identified. Second, studies aiming to investigate the measurement properties of these tools were selected. The measurement properties of each included tool were appraised using an adapted version of the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines.Results: 34 publications reporting on the development or validation of 26 included tools were included. For 62% of the included tools, there was no evidence of any measurement property. For the remaining tools, reliability was assessed most frequently. Reliability was judged as “sufficient” for three tools (very low quality of evidence). Content validity was rated as “sufficient” for one tool (moderate quality of evidence).Conclusions: Based on these results, no available tool can be fully recommended to assess the external validity of RCTs in systematic reviews. Several steps are required to overcome the identified difficulties to either adapt and validate available tools or to develop a new one. There is a need for more research for this purpose.Trial registration: Prospective registration at Open Science Framework (OSF): https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PTG4D

Download Full-text

Measurement Properties of Social Communication Assessments for Transition-Age Adolescents: A Systematic Review

Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools ◽

10.1044/2021_lshss-20-00141 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-20

Author(s):

Gerard H. Poll ◽

Caitlyn Maskalunas ◽

Lauren Walls ◽

Samantha Durbin ◽

Haley Hunken ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Social Communication ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Sufficient Evidence ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Validity And Reliability ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Transition Age ◽

Communication Assessment ◽

Independent Replication

Purpose An important role of social communication assessment is to support intervention planning as adolescents with disabilities transition to workplaces and other adult settings. Adoption of evidence-based assessment practices would align professionals with legal and ethical mandates for schools and other settings. There is, however, limited adoption of evidence-based assessment selection. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) provide a structured approach to identifying assessments with sufficient validity and reliability backed by strong evidence. The purpose of this review was to identify directly administered social communication assessments for adolescents and to apply the COSMIN framework to evaluate their measurement properties. Method A systematic search identified 13 assessments designed for 14- to 21-year-olds with developmental disabilities putting them at risk for social communication deficits. Measurement properties were extracted from included studies and rated for sufficiency. The quality of evidence supporting the findings was graded using COSMIN guidelines. Results Five social communication assessments were recommended as having sufficient evidence of content validity and internal consistency. Remaining assessments could be recommended as gaps in the evidence for their measurement properties are filled. Conclusions The application of the COSMIN standards has the potential to advance evidence-based assessment for social communication. There were important gaps in the independent replication of measurement properties and methodological shortcomings in the evaluation of reliability, measurement error, and structural validity.

Download Full-text

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 ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023204 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. e023204 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

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.

Download Full-text

PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS: CONCEPTUAL BASIS AND EVALUATION METHODS - PART II

Texto & Contexto - Enfermagem ◽

10.1590/1980-265x-tce-2017-0311 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 28 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Maria Elena Echevarría-Guanilo ◽

Natália Gonçalves ◽

Priscila Juceli Romanoski

Keyword(s):

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Theoretical Study ◽

Criterion Validity ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Measuring Instruments ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Selection Of

ABSTRACT Objective: to present and discuss conceptual bases and methods for evaluating the content, construct and criterion validity of self-reported measuring instruments. Method: theoretical study based on the concepts of the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments and those evaluated in the Evaluating the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes, which includes concepts of instrument assessment to assess patient-reported outcomes. Results: validity is significant for the methodological quality of an instrument; however, it is a relative criterion, since it depends on the adequacy of the instrument to be measured. There are three different validity measurement properties described in the literature: content, construct and criterion validity. Conclusions: as validity is an important property, it is recommended that it be verified in studies that aimed to develop new scales and in those that adapted and validated for another culture or population.

Download Full-text

What is the role of locoregional anesthesia in breast surgery? A systematic literature review focused on pain intensity, opioid consumption, adverse events, and patient satisfaction

BMC Anesthesiology ◽

10.1186/s12871-020-01206-4 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Pasquale Sansone ◽

Luca Gregorio Giaccari ◽

Mario Faenza ◽

Pasquale Di Costanzo ◽

Sara Izzo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Patient Satisfaction ◽

Breast Surgery ◽

The United States ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Anesthetic Techniques ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Cosmin Checklist ◽

Locoregional Anesthesia ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Background Breast surgery in the United States is common. Pain affects up to 50% of women undergoing breast surgery and can interfere with postoperative outcomes. General anesthesia is the conventional, most frequently used anaesthetic technique. Various locoregional anesthetic techniques are also used for breast surgeries. A systematic review of the use of locoregional anesthesia for postoperative pain in breast surgery is needed to clarify its role in pain management. Objectives To systematically review literature to establish the efficacy and the safety of locoregional anesthesia used in the treatment of pain after breast surgery. Methods Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Trials Register were systematically searched in Mars 2020 for studies examining locoregional anesthesia for management of pain in adults after breast surgery. The methodological quality of the studies and their results were appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and specific measurement properties criteria, respectively. Results Nineteen studies evaluating locoregional anesthesia were included: 1058 patients underwent lumpectomy/mastectomy, 142 breast augmentation and 79 breast reduction. Locoregional anesthesia provides effective anesthesia and analgesia in the perioperative setting, however no statistically significant difference emerged if compared to other techniques. For mastectomy only, the use of locoregional techniques reduces pain in the first hour after the end of the surgery if compared to other procedures (p = 0.02). Other potentially beneficial effects of locoregional anesthesia include decreased need for opioids, decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting, fewer complications and increased patient satisfaction. All this improves postoperative recovery and shortens hospitalization stay. In none of these cases, locoregional anesthesia was statistically superior to other techniques. Conclusion The results of our review showed no differences between locoregional anesthesia and other techniques in the management of breast surgery. Locoregional techniques are superior in reducing pain in the first hour after mastectomy.

Download Full-text

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

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036365 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Systematic review of measurement properties of self-reported instruments for evaluating therapeutic communication

Western Journal of Nursing Research ◽

10.1177/0193945920970154 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 019394592097015

Author(s):

Genoveva Granados-Gámez ◽

Isabel María Sáez-Ruiz ◽

Verónica V. Márquez-Hernández ◽

José Luis Ybarra-Sagarduy ◽

Gabriel Aguilera-Manrique ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Interpersonal Communication ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Measuring Instruments ◽

Relational Communication ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Therapeutic Communication ◽

Patient Centered

A systematic review was carried out to examine measurement tools of therapeutic relational communication, using an electronic search of the following databases: PubMed, LILACS, CINAHL, CiberIndex, Scielo and Scopus. The project followed the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis and the protocol recommended by the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) panel. Thirteen instruments were included in the review. and their measurement properties were tested. The most common communication elements found in the measuring instruments were: empathy, respect, listening, contact, communicative competence, communication quality, and communication skills. Studies that used a theoretical foundation were based on patient-centered humanistic models. Empathy, respect, controlled contact, and other basic elements of interpersonal communication were most commonly found among the measuring regents. In conclusion, this review analyzed the theoretical foundations of the components of instruments used to measure therapeutic relational communication in the nursing field.

Download Full-text