Dataset Information

Are there valid proxy measures of clinical behaviour? A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Accurate measures of health professionals' clinical practice are critically important to guide health policy decisions, as well as for professional self-evaluation and for research-based investigation of clinical practice and process of care. It is often not feasible or ethical to measure behaviour through direct observation, and rigorous behavioural measures are difficult and costly to use. The aim of this review was to identify the current evidence relating to the relationships between proxy measures and direct measures of clinical behaviour. In particular, the accuracy of medical record review, clinician self-reported and patient-reported behaviour was assessed relative to directly observed behaviour.We searched: PsycINFO; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; science/social science citation index; Current contents (social & behavioural med/clinical med); ISI conference proceedings; and Index to Theses.empirical, quantitative studies; and examining clinical behaviours. An independent, direct measure of behaviour (by standardised patient, other trained observer or by video/audio recording) was considered the 'gold standard' for comparison. Proxy measures of behaviour included: retrospective self-report; patient-report; or chart-review. All titles, abstracts, and full text articles retrieved by electronic searching were screened for inclusion and abstracted independently by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer where necessary.Fifteen reports originating from 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. The method of direct measurement was by standardised patient in six reports, trained observer in three reports, and audio/video recording in six reports. Multiple proxy measures of behaviour were compared in five of 15 reports. Only four of 15 reports used appropriate statistical methods to compare measures. Some direct measures failed to meet our validity criteria. The accuracy of patient report and chart review as proxy measures varied considerably across a wide range of clinical actions. The evidence for clinician self-report was inconclusive.Valid measures of clinical behaviour are of fundamental importance to accurately identify gaps in care delivery, improve quality of care, and ultimately to improve patient care. However, the evidence base for three commonly used proxy measures of clinicians' behaviour is very limited. Further research is needed to better establish the methods of development, application, and analysis for a range of both direct and proxy measures of behaviour.

SUBMITTER: Hrisos S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2713194 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Are there valid proxy measures of clinical behaviour? A systematic review.

Hrisos Susan S Eccles Martin P MP Francis Jill J JJ Dickinson Heather O HO Kaner Eileen F S EF Beyer Fiona F Johnston Marie M

Implementation science : IS 20090703

<h4>Background</h4>Accurate measures of health professionals' clinical practice are critically important to guide health policy decisions, as well as for professional self-evaluation and for research-based investigation of clinical practice and process of care. It is often not feasible or ethical to measure behaviour through direct observation, and rigorous behavioural measures are difficult and costly to use. The aim of this review was to identify the current evidence relating to the relationsh ...[more]

PMID: 19575790

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo determine the quality and utility of proxy-reported sensory measures for children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders (such as autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, movement disorders, and intellectual disability).MethodWe systematically searched 11 databases. We applied the updated Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist and criteria for good measurement properties to evaluate instrument development and psychometric properties. Findings were summarized using a COSMIN adaptation of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations.ResultsFrom 11 databases, 6748 articles were screened. Ninety-one full-length articles were reviewed after removing excluded studies and manual searches conducted by two reviewers. Data were extracted for 12 measures from 20 articles. Of the 12 measures, only three provided sufficient data to evaluate content validity and psychometric measurement properties. The Participation and Sensory Environment Questionnaire-Home (PSEQ-H) was the only measure that satisfied moderate content validity and moderate-to-high quality for measurement properties. These properties included: structural validity, hypothesis testing for construct validity, internal consistency, reliability, and measurement error.InterpretationOne measure, the PSEQ-H, met eight criteria for good measurement properties. To facilitate evidence-informed clinical decision-making, all psychometric properties of all 12 sensory-based, proxy-reported measures were presented. The importance of consumer engagement in measure development and the need for ongoing evaluation of measures against contemporaneous standards is recommended.What this paper addsThree measures provided studies on content validity and psychometric measurement properties. The Participation and Sensory Environment Questionnaire-Home had moderate quality for content validity studies and high-to-moderate quality evidence for psychometric properties. The Participation and Sensory Environment Questionnaire was the only measure that included consumer involvement through qualitative interviews and pilot testing. Consumer involvement in measure development is important for content validity. Ongoing evaluation of measures against contemporaneous standards is recommended.

Project description:IntroductionTo date only a limited number of reviews have focused on how exposure and outcome measures are defined in the existing literature on associations between tobacco retailer density ('density') and smoking behaviour ('smoking'). Therefore this systematic review classified and summarised how both density and smoking variables are operationalised in the existing literature, and provides several methodological recommendations for future density and smoking research.MethodsTwo literature searches between March and April 2018 and April 2022 were conducted across 10 databases. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed and keyword database searches were undertaken. Studies were imported into Covidence. Cross-sectional studies that met the inclusion criteria were extracted and a quality assessment was undertaken. Studies were categorised according to the density measure used, and smoking was re-categorised using a modified classification tool.ResultsLarge heterogeneity was found in the operationalisation of both measures in the 47 studies included for analysis. Density was most commonly measured directly from geocoded locations using circular buffers at various distances (n = 14). After smoking was reclassified using a smoking classification tool, past-month smoking was the most common smoking type reported (n = 26).ConclusionsIt is recommended that density is measured through length-distance and travel time using the street network and weighted (e.g. by the size of an area), or by using Kernel Density Estimates as these methods provide a more accurate measure of geographical to tobacco and e-cigarette retailer density. The consistent application of a smoking measures classification tool, such as the one developed for this systematic review, would enable better comparisons between studies. Future research should measure exposure and outcome measures in a way that makes them comparable with other studies.ImplicationsThis systematic review provides a strong case for improving data collection and analysis methodologies in studies assessing tobacco retailer density and smoking behaviour to ensure that both exposure and outcome measures are clearly defined and captured. As large heterogeneity was found in the operationalisation of both density and smoking behaviour measures in the studies included for analysis, there is a need for future studies to capture, measure and classify exposure measures accurately, and to define outcome measures in a manner that makes them comparable with other studies.

Project description:ObjectivesGeneric health status measures such as the short form health survey (SF-36) and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) are increasingly being used to inform health policy. They are claimed to be applicable across disease areas and have started to be used within mental health research. This review aims to assess the construct validity and responsiveness of four generic health status measures in schizophrenia, including the preference-based SF-6D and EQ-5D.MethodA systematic review of the literature was undertaken. Ten databases were searched from inception to August 2009 and reference lists scrutinized to identify relevant studies. Studies were appraised and data extracted. A narrative synthesis was performed of the evidence on construct validity including known groups validity (detecting a difference in health-related quality of life (HRQL) scores between two different groups such as samples from the general population and people with schizophrenia), convergent validity (strength of association between generic HRQL and other measures (e.g., symptom or functional), and responsiveness. Responsiveness was considered by: 1) differences in generic HRQL measure scores in responders/non-responders and 2) correlation between changes on generic HRQL measures and changes in specific measures obtained from patients and clinicians.ResultsThirty-three studies were identified that provided data on the validity and/or responsiveness of the instruments. Most of the evidence concerns the SF-36 and EQ-5D, and for these instruments there was evidence for known group validity. The evidence for convergent validity and responsiveness was mixed, with studies presenting contradictory results.ConclusionAlthough the evidence base is limited in a number of important respects, including problems with the measures used to develop constructs in the validation studies, it is sufficient to raise doubts about the use of generic measures of health like the EQ-5D and SF-36 in patients with schizophrenia.

Project description:IntroductionMeasures of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), accompanied by the values (or utilities) required to estimate quality-adjusted life-years, are crucial for determining health benefits within economic evaluation and health technology assessment. Several generic and condition-specific measures or instruments of HRQoL, accompanied by values, currently exist for application with child populations. However, there is a lack of a structured summary of guidelines and recommendations for applying these measures in practice. This protocol describes a systematic review of guidelines and recommendations for child and proxy completion of child-specific measures of HRQoL. The aims of the review are to (1) identify and summarise published guidelines and recommendations for existing child-specific measures of HRQoL, (2) determine whether the identified guidelines and recommendations differ by instrument and child characteristics, (3) identify current gaps in these guidelines and recommendations and (4) identify best practices for child self and proxy assessment in paediatric HRQoL measurement for economic evaluation and health technology assessment.Methods and analysisThe review will identify, collate and synthesise published guidelines and recommendations for existing child-specific utility measures of HRQoL. Electronic databases to be searched include the Cochrane Library, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, EconLit, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase and Informit. The search will be extended to websites of (1) international organisations for health technology assessment, (2) regulation, health economics and HRQoL outcomes research and (3) instrument developers. Three reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts against the inclusion criteria. A narrative synthesis will describe the key features of the guidelines identified.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as the proposed systematic review will not use primary data. A paper of the systematic review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.Prospero registration numberCRD42020207160.

Project description:IntroductionThe subjective assessment of the adequacy of informed consent for clinical trials, and the potential difficulties associated with it, has led several studies to develop objective measures of informed consent for clinical trials. These objective measures of informed consent are often specific to a particular population or clinical condition and largely focus on understanding of (some or all of) the key elements of informed consent. Many of the developed tools are study-specific, but some validated measures exist. Of these validated measures, those which are reported by participants are of particular interest. Whether these objective tools conceptualize and measure informed consent in the same way is not known. As such, it is not clear whether meta-analyzing data from studies reporting different tools is worthwhile. The aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise the evidence on the overall conceptualisation and item content of validated patient reported measures of informed consent for clinical trials, and to identify core domains of potential importance for informed consent.MethodsA systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify relevant articles that described the development, and/or validation, of patient-reported measures of adequacy of informed consent for randomised controlled trials. Data was synthesised by classifying the items identified into domains and sub-domains which were determined by the nomenclature reported in included studies. Both for descriptions of included studies and of the instruments reported in those studies, descriptive statistics were used to describe general information and instrument detail. A narrative synthesis of the instruments and their inter-related domains and subdomains was conducted to identify areas of both convergence and divergence.ResultsThe search identified 8193 citations. After screening titles and abstracts, 29 full text articles were retrieved for further assessment. Of these 29, 14 complied with our pre-specified inclusion criteria with 15 not being eligible. Of the 14 instruments, three explicitly reported a theoretical or conceptual framework underpinning their development, a further three implicitly referred to the 'conceptual dimensions of informed consent' or 'principles of research ethics' as informing their development and eight reported no guiding theoretical framework. Only three of the 14 studies reported patient or public involvement in the development of the tool. One hundred and seventy nine items were included across the 14 instruments. The primary focus of the instruments was on understanding. Five core domains were identified which included: Autonomy; Consequences; Expectations; Purpose; and Individualisation. There was substantial variability in the coverage of different domains across measures.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated the variability in the theoretical underpinning, development and domain coverage of existing patient-reported measures of informed consent for clinical trials. The conceptualisation of informed consent could benefit from being extended from a narrow focus on understanding to include broader considerations of decision-making. Meaningful involvement of potential trial participants during development of measures critical for tool relevance is also lacking. The identification of the key domains relevant to all stakeholders which could be measured to assess the informed consent process for clinical trials is needed.

Project description:ObjectiveWith sensors, we are increasingly able to assess sitting behaviour during the day. However, there is no consensus among researchers on the best outcome measures for representing the accumulation of sedentary time during the day.MethodsWe analysed the pattern measures of sedentary behaviour. Articles reporting patterns measures in adults, in which behaviour data was collected with a sensor were included. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the pattern measures of sedentary behaviour and provide recommendations for choosing objective measures of sedentary behaviour.ResultsMost studies report the number of sitting bouts during the day. Others focus on the number of breaks and/or periods of physical activity. Simple measures of sedentary behaviour were most popular. More complex pattern measures, such as the Gini index or the half-life bout duration, that capture the distribution of lengths of sitting periods in a single number, were reported sparsely. The sedentary patterns that were reported in the various studies were difficult to compare, due to the differences among measurement devices, data analysis protocols and a lack of basic outcome parameters such as total wear-time and total sedentary time.ConclusionsObjective sedentary measures can be grouped into simple and complex measures of sedentary time accumulation during the day. These measures serve different goals. The answer to the question as to which measures are most suitable to report, is strongly dependent on the research question. We have shown that the reported measures were dependent on (a) the sensing method, (b) the classification method, (c) the experimental and data cleaning protocol and (d) the applied definitions of bouts and breaks. We recommend that studies should always report total wear-time, total sedentary time, number of bouts and at least one measure describing the diversity of bout lengths in the sedentary behaviour such as the half-life bout duration. Additionally, we recommend reporting the measurement conditions and data processing steps.

Dataset Information

Are there valid proxy measures of clinical behaviour? A systematic review.

Publications

Are there valid proxy measures of clinical behaviour? A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets