Self-efficacy measurement instruments for individuals with coronary artery disease: A systematic review
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: de Almeida J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10911622 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionSelf-efficacy is associated with management of diseases, psychological well-being, improved quality of life and rehabilitation adherence. Several instruments related to behaviour or specific disease (eg, coronary artery disease (CAD)) assess self-efficacy. The evaluation of cardiac self-efficacy in individuals with CAD will support healthcare professionals to improve self-efficacy via interventions; therefore, a suitable instrument is crucial. This systematic review aims to assess measurement properties, methodological quality and content of outcome measures of cardiac self-efficacy instruments for individuals with CAD.Methods and analysisThe study has been developed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol and Consensus Norms for Selection of Health Measuring Instruments (COSMIN). The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Studies assessing measurement properties of cardiac self-efficacy instruments for individuals with CAD will be included. No date or language restrictions will be applied to the search. Two independent authors will be responsible for assessing the eligibility of studies. Methodological quality of studies will be assessed using the COSMIN RoB Checklist, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Assessment will be used to assess the quality of each study. Two authors will independently evaluate the content of instruments and link this to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.Ethics and disseminationThis study does not require ethics committee approval since it is based on previously published data. Evidence from this systematic review will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at scientific conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42021262613.
| S-EPMC9330326 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvidence-based practice (EBP) is well known to most healthcare professionals. Implementing EBP in clinical practice is a complex process that can be challenging and slow. Lack of EBP knowledge, skills, attitudes, self-efficacy, and behavior can be essential barriers that should be measured using valid and reliable instruments for the population in question. Results from previous systematic reviews show that information regarding high-quality instruments that measure EBP attitudes, behavior, and self-efficacy in various healthcare disciplines need to be improved. This systematic review aimed to summarize the measurement properties of existing instruments that measure healthcare professionals' EBP attitudes, behaviors, and self-efficacy.MethodsWe included studies that reported measurement properties of instruments that measure healthcare professionals' EBP attitudes, behaviors, and self-efficacy. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, HaPI, AMED via Ovid, and Cinahl via Ebscohost were searched in October 2020. The search was updated in December 2022. The measurement properties extracted included data on the item development process, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, and measurement error. The quality assessment, rating of measurement properties, synthesis, and modified grading of the evidence were conducted in accordance with the COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews.ResultsThirty-four instruments that measure healthcare professionals' EBP attitudes, behaviors or self-efficacy were identified. Seventeen of the 34 were validated in two or more healthcare disciplines. Nurses were most frequently represented (n = 53). Despite the varying quality of instrument development and content validity studies, most instruments received sufficient ( +) ratings on content validity, with the quality of evidence graded as "very low" in most cases. Structural validity and internal consistency were the measurement properties most often assessed, and reliability and measurement error were most rarely assessed. The quality assessment results and overall rating of these measurement properties varied, but the quality of evidence was generally graded higher for these properties than for content validity.ConclusionsBased on the summarized results, the constructs, and the population of interest, several instruments can be recommended for use in various healthcare disciplines. However, future studies should strive to use qualitative methods to further develop existing EBP instruments and involve the target population.Trial registrationThis review is registered in PROSPERO. CRD42020196009. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020196009.
| S-EPMC10500884 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although the literature on patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) continues to expand, challenges persist in selecting reliable and valid instruments for assessing peripheral neuropathy (PN) in patients with cancer. This systematic review aimed to identify all validated self-report PN scales and critically appraise their measurement properties. This review was conducted using the COSMIN methodology for PROMs and the PRISMA statement. Five databases were searched from inception to August 2024, identifying 46 eligible studies and 16 PROMs. Evidence quality ranged from "very low" to "moderate", with notable inconsistencies in the content and structural validity phases of most instruments. Instruments such as the Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy assessment tool and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity demonstrated moderate quality and potential utility in clinical practice, while others, including the Location-based assessment of sensory symptoms in cancer and the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment, had insufficient evidence to support their use. Importantly, all PROMs focused on chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, highlighting a significant gap in instruments addressing other PN causes, such as radiotherapy or tumor-related nerve damage. Further research should prioritize developing and validating instruments for distinct cancer populations, ensuring robust psychometric properties and clinical applicability.
| S-EPMC11674663 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFunctional mobility (FM) is a person's ability to move to accomplish activities of daily living; it bridges the concepts of mobility and functional ability. There is frequently a loss of FM in Parkinson's disease (PD). Several instruments have been used to assess this concept in PD; however, there is no consensus on which are the most appropriate.ObjectiveWe aimed to identify and critically appraise which measurement instruments have been used to assess FM.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PEDro from their inception to January 2019 to identify all observational and experimental studies conducted in PD or atypical parkinsonism that included an FM assessment. Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed clinimetric properties.ResultsWe included 95 studies that assessed FM in PD. Fifty-five (57.9%) studies mentioned FM in the article, and 39 (41.1%) specified the measurement tools used to evaluate FM. FM was the primary outcome in 12 (12.6%) studies. The Timed Up and Go test was the most frequently used measurement tool. Only one study presented a definition of FM. Several overlapping terms were used, the most common being mobility.ConclusionSeveral studies reported the use of FM measurement tools in PD, though with frequent misconceptions, an inadequate context of use, or suboptimal assessment. We propose the establishment of the concept of FM applied to PD, followed by the adequate clinimetric validation of existing measurement tools to provide a comprehensive and reliable evaluation of FM in PD.
| S-EPMC7011644 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Measurement of self-efficacy requires carefully developed and validated instruments. It is currently unclear whether available self-efficacy instruments for chronic diseases fulfill these requirements. Our aim was to systematically identify all existing self-efficacy scales for five major chronic diseases and to assess their development and validation process. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in electronic databases (MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, and EMBASE) to identify studies describing the development and/or validation process of self-efficacy instruments for the five chronic diseases diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, arthritis, and heart failure. Two members of the review team independently selected articles meeting inclusion criteria. The self-efficacy instruments were evaluated in terms of their development (aim of instrument, a priori considerations, identification of items, selection of items, development of domains, answer options) and validation (test-retest reliability, internal consistency reliability, validity, responsiveness) process. RESULTS: Of 584 potentially eligible papers we included 25 (13 for diabetes, 5 for asthma, 4 for arthritis, 3 for COPD, 0 for heart failure) which covered 26 different self-efficacy instrument versions. For 8 instruments (30.8%), the authors described the aim before the scales were developed whereas for the other instruments the aim was unclear. In one study (3.8%) a priori considerations were specified. In none of the studies a systematic literature search was carried out to identify items. The item selection process was often not clearly described (38.5%). Test-retest reliability was assessed for 9 instruments (34.6%), validity using a correlational approach for 18 (69.2%), and responsiveness to change for 3 (11.5%) instruments. CONCLUSION: The development and validation process of the majority of the self-efficacy instruments had major limitations. The aim of the instruments was often not specified and for most instruments, not all measurement properties that are important to support the specific aim of the instrument (for example responsiveness for evaluative instruments) were assessed. Researchers who develop and validate self-efficacy instruments should adhere more closely to important methodological concepts for development and validation of patient-reported outcomes and report their methods more transparently. We propose a systematic five step approach for the development and validation of self-efficacy instruments.
| S-EPMC2761851 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe internet is now a major source of health information. With the growth of internet users, eHealth literacy has emerged as a new concept for digital health care. Therefore, health professionals need to consider the eHealth literacy of consumers when providing care utilizing digital health technologies.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify currently available eHealth literacy instruments and evaluate their measurement properties to provide robust evidence to researchers and clinicians who are selecting an eHealth literacy instrument.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of self-reported eHealth literacy instruments by applying the updated COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) methodology.ResultsThis study included 7 instruments from 41 articles describing 57 psychometric studies, as identified in 4 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo). No eHealth literacy instrument provided evidence for all measurement properties. The eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS) was originally developed with a single-factor structure under the definition of eHealth literacy before the rise of social media and the mobile web. That instrument was evaluated in 18 different languages and 26 countries, involving diverse populations. However, various other factor structures were exhibited: 7 types of two-factor structures, 3 types of three-factor structures, and 1 bifactor structure. The transactional eHealth literacy instrument (TeHLI) was developed to reflect the broader concept of eHealth literacy and was demonstrated to have a sufficient low-quality and very low-quality evidence for content validity (relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility) and sufficient high-quality evidence for structural validity and internal consistency; however, that instrument has rarely been evaluated.ConclusionsThe eHealth literacy scale was the most frequently investigated instrument. However, it is strongly recommended that the instrument's content be updated to reflect recent advancements in digital health technologies. In addition, the transactional eHealth literacy instrument needs improvements in content validity and further psychometric studies to increase the credibility of its synthesized evidence.
| S-EPMC8663713 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimThe aim of this study was to summarize and evaluate the empirical evidence on the measurement properties of diaper dermatitis (DD) measurement instruments in children.DesignSystematic review.MethodsMEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE were systematically searched until 14 June 2021. Citation searching was conducted in Scopus. The risk of bias, the reported measurement properties and the quality of evidence were evaluated using the COSMIN framework. The reporting follows the PRISMA 2020 statement.ResultsWe identified 1200 records in the databases and 108 records during citation searching and included four studies describing three measurement instruments for DD in children and their measurement properties. We considered the content validity inconsistent for all three instruments. The study authors reported internal consistency, reliability and construct validity for one instrument. We rated the quality of evidence from very low to moderate.
| S-EPMC10416076 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe concept of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines the left internal mammary artery (LIMA)-left anterior descending (LAD) graft and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to non-LAD vessels. Multiple comparative studies have evaluated the safety and feasibility of HCR and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for multivessel coronary artery disease (MCAD). However, the sample size of each study was small, and evidences based on single-institutional experience. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the short-term outcomes of HCR with those of CABG for MCAD.MethodPubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, as well as conference proceedings, were searched for eligible studies published up to March 2014. We calculated summary odds ratios (OR) for primary endpoints (death, stroke; myocardial infarction (MI); target vessel revascularization (TVR); major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCEs)) and secondary endpoints (atrial fibrillation (AF); renal failure; length of stay in the intensive care unit (LoS in ICU); length of stay in hospital (LoS in hospital); red blood cell (RBC) transfusion). Data from 6176 participants were derived from ten cohort studies.ResultsHCR was non-inferior to CABG in terms of MACCEs during hospitalization (odds ratio (OR), 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34-1.33)and at one-year follow-up(0.32, 0.05-1.89) , and no significant difference was found between HCR and CABG groups in in-hospital and one-year follow-up outcomes of death, MI, stroke, the prevalence of AF and renal failure, whereas HCR was associated with a lower requirement of RBC transfusion and shorter LoS in ICU and LoS in hospital than CABG (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.25, 95% CI, -1.62 to -0.88; -17.47, -31.01 to -3.93; -1.77, -3.07 to -0.46; respectively).ConclusionOur meta-analysis indicates that HCR is feasible, safe and effective for the treatment of MCAD, with similar in-hospital and one-year follow-up outcome, significantly lower requirement of RBC transfusion, and faster recovery compared with CABG.
| S-EPMC4433085 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHealth literacy evaluation is considered a priority issue in the health literacy research field. The complexity of the multiple definitions of health literacy and the diversity of instruments to evaluate health literacy has become a challenge to the establishment of comparisons across different studies. This work aimed to provide a systematic literature review of the existing measurement instruments adapted or developed for different groups of the Portuguese population.MethodsA comprehensive search of digital databases was conducted to systematize and understand the available knowledge about health literacy measurement in Portugal and to identify assessment tools and studies developed. The selection process was based on PRISMA guidelines.ResultsA total of 17 publications were analysed regarding different aspects, which resulted in the identification of 11 different instruments, that were adapted or developed to measure health literacy in different groups of the Portuguese population, mainly adults, adolescents, and young adults. Seven instruments focusing on general health literacy (including e-health), 2 on mental health literacy, and the other 2 on oral health literacy were identified.Discussion/conclusionThis study presents the first general overview of health literacy measurement in Portugal and clearly shows that to deepen our knowledge of health literacy in the Portuguese population it is essential to broaden the scope and the target of health literacy assessment to have a comprehensive understanding that will allow transforming our reality regarding health and disease.
| S-EPMC11320107 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Policy Points: Investigations on systematic methodologies for measuring integrated care should coincide with the growing interest in this field of research. A systematic review of instruments provides insights into integrated care measurement, including setting the research agenda for validating available instruments and informing the decision to develop new ones. This study is the first systematic review of instruments measuring integrated care with an evidence synthesis of the measurement properties. We found 209 index instruments measuring different constructs related to integrated care; the strength of evidence on the adequacy of the majority of their measurement properties remained largely unassessed.ContextIntegrated care is an important strategy for increasing health system performance. Despite its growing significance, detailed evidence on the measurement properties of integrated care instruments remains vague and limited. Our systematic review aims to provide evidence on the state of the art in measuring integrated care.MethodsOur comprehensive systematic review framework builds on the Rainbow Model for Integrated Care (RMIC). We searched MEDLINE/PubMed for published articles on the measurement properties of instruments measuring integrated care and identified eligible articles using a standard set of selection criteria. We assessed the methodological quality of every validation study reported using the COSMIN checklist and extracted data on study and instrument characteristics. We also evaluated the measurement properties of each examined instrument per validation study and provided a best evidence synthesis on the adequacy of measurement properties of the index instruments.FindingsFrom the 300 eligible articles, we assessed the methodological quality of 379 validation studies from which we identified 209 index instruments measuring integrated care constructs. The majority of studies reported on instruments measuring constructs related to care integration (33%) and patient-centered care (49%); fewer studies measured care continuity/comprehensive care (15%) and care coordination/case management (3%). We mapped 84% of the measured constructs to the clinical integration domain of the RMIC, with fewer constructs related to the domains of professional (3.7%), organizational (3.4%), and functional (0.5%) integration. Only 8% of the instruments were mapped to a combination of domains; none were mapped exclusively to the system or normative integration domains. The majority of instruments were administered to either patients (60%) or health care providers (20%). Of the measurement properties, responsiveness (4%), measurement error (7%), and criterion (12%) and cross-cultural validity (14%) were less commonly reported. We found <50% of the validation studies to be of good or excellent quality for any of the measurement properties. Only a minority of index instruments showed strong evidence of positive findings for internal consistency (15%), content validity (19%), and structural validity (7%); with moderate evidence of positive findings for internal consistency (14%) and construct validity (14%).ConclusionsOur results suggest that the quality of measurement properties of instruments measuring integrated care is in need of improvement with the less-studied constructs and domains to become part of newly developed instruments.
| S-EPMC5192798 | biostudies-literature