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:BackgroundDependent adults have been shown to have a greater experience of oral health deterioration and orofacial pain. This is partly because their non-dental caregivers may not easily identify oral health problems and orofacial pain experienced by them. Thus, this systematic review aimed to investigate measurement properties, interpretability and feasibility of instruments assessing oral health and orofacial pain in dependent adults, which can be used by the non-dental caregivers to establish oral care plans for those who are dependent upon them.MethodsSeven bibliographic databases were searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, HTA, OATD and OpenGrey. Citations and reference lists of the included studies were also manually searched. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and then full texts. A quality assessment of included studies was conducted independently by two authors using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. The best evidence synthesis method was used to synthesise results from different studies for each measurement property per measurement instrument by integrating the overall rating for each measurement property per measurement instrument with its quality level of evidence.ResultsNineteen eligible studies were included, which reported the development, measurement properties' evaluation, interpretability and feasibility of nine oral health and three orofacial pain measurement instruments. Methodological quality of the included studies ranged from very good to inadequate. None of the identified measurement instruments has been adequately and comprehensively tested.ConclusionsWhile several measurement instruments were identified in this systematic review, more evidence is needed to be able to more comprehensively evaluate these instruments. Among those identified, the OPS-NVI demonstrated sufficient construct validity, while the OHAT and the THROAT demonstrated sufficient reliability. These instruments therefore have potential for future use with more confidence once other measurement properties, interpretability and feasibility have been sufficiently tested and evaluated.

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.

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