scholarly journals Patient-Reported Questionnaires to Identify Adverse Drug Reactions: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (22) ◽  
pp. 11877
Author(s):  
Renly Lim ◽  
Lisa Kalisch Ellett ◽  
Elizabeth E. Roughead ◽  
Phaik Yeong Cheah ◽  
Nashwa Masnoon
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Adverse Drug Reactions ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Drug Reactions ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Selection Of

Background: This systematic review aims to summarise available patient-reported questionnaires to detect adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that can be utilised by healthcare professionals in clinical practice and to summarise the psychometric properties (validity, reliability, and responsiveness) of the questionnaires. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Pubmed, Embase, and Emcare databases to screen for articles published between January 2000 and July 2020. Data items regarding validity, reliability, and responsiveness were extracted independently by two authors. The methodological quality was assessed using the COSMIN (Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) checklist. Results: A total of 1563 unique article titles were identified after removing duplicates. Following shortlisting of relevant articles, 19 patient-reported ADR questionnaires were identified. Questionnaires most commonly focused on mental health medications (42.1%, n = 8), followed by general questionnaires applicable to any medication (21.1%, n = 4). Many questionnaires did not report assessing the validity and reliability of the measurement tool. For example, only 11 questionnaires (58%) mentioned assessing content validity, in addition to criterion or construct testing. Conclusion: This systematic review summarised the available patient-reported questionnaires that can be used in research and clinical practice to identify ADRs. Results of this systematic review highlight the need for more robust validity and reliability testing when developing patient-reported ADR questionnaires.

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 PROPRIEDADES PSICOMÉTRICAS DE INSTRUMENTOS DE MEDIDAS: BASES CONCEITUAIS E MÉTODOS DE AVALIAÇÃO - PARTE I

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Elena Echevarría-Guanilo ◽  
Natália Gonçalves ◽  
Priscila Juceli Romanoski
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Selection Of

RESUMO Objetivo: apresentar e discutir bases conceituais e métodos de avaliações que fundamentam importantes propriedades de instrumentos de medidas. Método: estudo teórico embasado na literatura internacional e nacional e nos instrumentos Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments e Evaluating the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes que contemplam conceitos de avaliação de instrumentos para apreciação de resultados relatados pelo paciente. Inicialmente são apresentados e discutidos os conceitos de confiabilidade, responsividade e interpretabilidade, citados exemplos das principais formas de avaliação dessas propriedades. Resultados: pode-se perceber que ainda há divergências em algumas descrições conceituais. Entretanto, os autores ressaltam a importância da confiabilidade para avaliar o instrumento de medida. Destaca-se a importância do conhecimento do Modelo Conceitual, das propriedades de medidas e dos diferentes métodos de avaliação para garantir, principalmente em estudo de validação de instrumentos, resultados confiáveis e válidos. Conclusões: a discussão apresentada sobre a confiabilidade, responsividade e interpretabilidade contribui para os profissionais de saúde no conhecimento teórico e senso crítico na escolha de instrumentos e na condução de análises sobre essas propriedades de medida.

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 International development and implementation of a core measurement set for research and audit studies in implant-based breast reconstruction: a study protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e035505
Author(s):  
Shelley Potter ◽  
Charlotte Davies ◽  
Christopher Holcombe ◽  
Eva Weiler-Mithoff ◽  
Joanna Skillman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
International Development ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Clinical Patient ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Selection Of

IntroductionOutcome reporting in research studies of breast reconstruction is inconsistent and lacks standardisation. The results of individual studies therefore cannot be meaningfully compared or combined limiting their value. A core outcome set (COS) has been developed to address these issues and identified 11 key outcomes to be measured and reported in all future research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery (RBS). A COS represents what key outcomes should be measured. The next step is to determine how and when this should be done. The aim of this study is to develop a core measurement set (CMS) for use in research and audit studies in implant-based breast reconstruction.Methods and analysisThe CMS will be developed in accordance with the guidance developed by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative (COMET) and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) group for the selection of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) for relevant outcome domains included in the RBS COS. This will involve three phases with strategies to promote implementation as a final additional phase. The phases are (1) conceptual considerations in which the target population, procedures and settings are defined; (2) systematic reviews to identify existing clinical, patient-reported and cosmetic OMIs and, if appropriate, assess their quality using COSMIN methodology; (3) a modified Delphi process including sequential Delphi surveys involving approximately 100 healthcare professionals and a face to face consensus meeting to agree and ratify which outcome definitions and OMIs should be used and standardised time points for assessment; (4) strategies to promote dissemination and adoption of the CMS.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by University of Bristol Faculty Research Ethics Committee FREC ID 60221. Dissemination strategies will include scientific meeting presentations and peer-reviewed journal publications. Implementation activities will include engagement with journal editors and funders to promote uptake and use of the CMS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document