Dataset Information

A systematic review finds limited data on measurement properties of instruments measuring outcomes in adult intensive care unit survivors.

ABSTRACT: There is a growing number of studies evaluating the physical, cognitive, mental health, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes of adults surviving critical illness. However, there is little consensus on the most appropriate instruments to measure these outcomes. To inform the development of such consensus, we conducted a systematic review of the performance characteristics of instruments measuring physical, cognitive, mental health, and HRQOL outcomes in adult intensive care unit (ICU) survivors.We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and The Cochrane Library in March 2015. We also conducted manual searches of reference lists of eligible studies and relevant review articles. Two people independently selected studies, completed data abstraction, and assessed the quality of eligible studies using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) initiative checklist.We identified 20 studies which explicitly evaluated measurement properties for 21 different instruments assessing outcomes in ICU survivors. Eleven of the instruments assessed quality of life, with few instruments assessing other domains. Of the nine measurement properties evaluated on the COSMIN checklist, six were assessed in <10% of the evaluations. Overall quality of eligible studies was generally poor to fair based on the COSMIN checklist.Although an increasing number of studies measure physical, cognitive, mental health, and HRQOL outcomes in adult ICU survivors, data on the measurement properties of such instruments are sparse and generally of poor to fair quality. Empirical analyses evaluating the performance of instruments in adult ICU survivors are needed to advance research in this field.

SUBMITTER: Robinson KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5325798 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review finds limited data on measurement properties of instruments measuring outcomes in adult intensive care unit survivors.

Robinson Karen A KA Davis Wesley E WE Dinglas Victor D VD Mendez-Tellez Pedro A PA Rabiee Anahita A Sukrithan Vineeth V Yalamanchilli Ramakrishna R Turnbull Alison E AE Needham Dale M DM

Journal of clinical epidemiology 20161116

<h4>Background and objective</h4>There is a growing number of studies evaluating the physical, cognitive, mental health, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes of adults surviving critical illness. However, there is little consensus on the most appropriate instruments to measure these outcomes. To inform the development of such consensus, we conducted a systematic review of the performance characteristics of instruments measuring physical, cognitive, mental health, and HRQOL outcome ...[more]

PMID: 27865899

Similar Datasets

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.Integrated 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.Our 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.From 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%).Our 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.

Project description:Background: Acute psychiatric units in general hospitals must ensure that acutely disturbed patients do not harm themselves or others, and simultaneously provide care and treatment and help patients regain control of their behavior. This led to the development of strategies for the seclusion of a patient in this state within a particular area separated from other patients in the ward. While versions of this practice have been used in different countries and settings, a systematic framework for describing the various parameters and types of seclusion interventions has not been available. The aims of the project were to develop and test a valid and reliable checklist for characterizing seclusion in inpatient psychiatric care. Methods: Development and testing of the checklist were accomplished in five stages. Staff in psychiatric units completed detailed descriptions of seclusion episodes. Elements of seclusion were identified by thematic analysis of this material, and consensus regarding these elements was achieved through a Delphi process comprising two rounds. Good content validity was ensured through the sample of seclusion episodes and the representative participants in the Delphi process. The first draft of the checklist was revised based on testing by clinicians assessing seclusion episodes. The revised checklist with six reasons for and 10 elements of seclusion was tested with different response scales, and acceptable interrater reliability was achieved. Results: The Clinical Seclusion Checklist is a brief and feasible tool measuring six reasons for seclusion, 10 elements of seclusion, and four contextual factors. It was developed through a transparent process and exhibited good content validity and acceptable interrater reliability. Conclusion: The checklist is a step toward achieving valid and clinically relevant measurements of seclusion. Its use in psychiatric units may contribute to quality assurance, more reliable statistics and comparisons across sites and periods, improved research on patients' experiences of seclusion and its effects, reduction of negative consequences of seclusion, and improvement of psychiatric intensive care.

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.

Project description:Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is associated with decreased mortality and rehospitalization rates for patients with a variety of cardiac conditions. Although CR referral rates for STEMI patients have improved, rates for heart failure have remained low. Many of these patients are admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). However, it is unknown how often CICU survivors qualify for cardiac rehabilitation, how often they are referred, and why eligible patients are not referred. This is a retrospective single-center study of 417 consecutive patients admitted to CICU for >48 hours from March 30, 2016 to March 30, 2017. We excluded patients with in-hospital mortality or those discharged AMA, to hospice or transferred. Chart abstraction was used to determine CR indications based on known American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. If CR was indicated, medical records through September 2017 were reviewed to determine both referral and participation rates. In the absence of a referral, medical records were reviewed for potential barriers. A total of 296 CICU survivors were identified upon discharge with 185 (63%) having guideline-directed indications for CR referral. The most common indications were heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, 38%), cardiothoracic surgery (26%), and STEMI (23%). Upon discharge, only 30% of patients were referred to CR. The referral rate increased by 33% to 63% by 18 months postdischarge. CR referrals were most frequently placed following STEMI (91%), NSTEMI (80%), and postpercutaneous coronary intervention (80%). Only 35% of HFrEF discharges were referred to CR. Of patients not referred to CR, no explanation for a lack of referral was documented 87% of the time. In conclusion, nearly 2 of 3 patients discharged from the CICU had CR indications, most commonly HFrEF. CR referrals are frequently not placed and reason for nonreferral is rarely documented. CICU admission may provide a defined event to prompt referral.

Dataset Information

A systematic review finds limited data on measurement properties of instruments measuring outcomes in adult intensive care unit survivors.

Publications

A systematic review finds limited data on measurement properties of instruments measuring outcomes in adult intensive care unit survivors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets