Dataset Information

Assessment of Instruments for Measurement of Delirium Severity: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Measurement of delirium severity has been recognized as highly important for tracking prognosis, monitoring response to treatment, and estimating burden of care for patients both during and after hospitalization. Rather than simply rating delirium as present or absent, the ability to quantify its severity would enable development and monitoring of more effective treatment approaches for the condition. Objectives:To present a comprehensive review of delirium severity instruments, conduct a methodologic quality rating of the original validation study of the most commonly used instruments, and select a group of top-rated instruments. Evidence Review:This systematic review was conducted using literature from Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, from January 1, 1974, through March 31, 2017, with the key words delirium, severity, tests, measures, and intensity. Inclusion criteria were original articles assessing delirium severity and using a delirium-specific severity instrument. Final listings of articles were supplemented with hand searches of reference listings to ensure completeness. At least 2 reviewers independently completed each step of the review process: article selection, data extraction, and methodologic quality assessment of relevant articles using a validated rating scale. All discrepancies between raters were resolved by consensus. Findings:Of 9409 articles identified, 228 underwent full text review, and we identified 42 different instruments of delirium severity. Eleven of the 42 tools were multidomain, delirium-specific instruments providing a quantitative rating of delirium severity; these instruments underwent a methodologic quality review. Applying prespecified criteria related to frequency of use, methodologic quality, construct or predictive validity, and broad domain coverage, an expert panel used an iterative modified Delphi process to select 6 final high-quality instruments meeting these criteria: the Confusion Assessment Method-Severity Score, Confusional State Examination, Delirium-O-Meter, Delirium Observation Scale, Delirium Rating Scale, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale. Conclusions and Relevance:The 6 instruments identified may enable accurate measurement of delirium severity to improve clinical care for patients with this condition. This work may stimulate increased usage and head-to-head comparison of these instruments.

SUBMITTER: Jones RN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6382582 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:Background/objectivesDelirium manifests clinically in varying ways across settings. More than 40 instruments currently exist for characterizing the different manifestations of delirium. We evaluated all delirium identification instruments according to their psychometric properties and frequency of citation in published research.DesignWe conducted the systematic review by searching Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science from January 1, 1974, to January 31, 2020, with the keywords "delirium" and "instruments," along with their known synonyms. We selected only systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or narrative literature reviews including multiple delirium identification instruments.MeasurementsTwo reviewers assessed the eligibility of articles and extracted data on all potential delirium identification instruments. Using the original publication on each instrument, the psychometric properties were examined using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) framework.ResultsOf 2,542 articles identified, 75 met eligibility criteria, yielding 30 different delirium identification instruments. A count of citations was determined using Scopus for the original publication for each instrument. Each instrument underwent methodological quality review of psychometric properties using COSMIN definitions. An expert panel categorized key domains for delirium identification based on criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-III through DSM-5. Four instruments were notable for having at least two of three of the following: citation count of 200 or more, strong validation methodology in their original publication, and fulfillment of DSM-5 criteria. These were, alphabetically, Confusion Assessment Method, Delirium Observation Screening Scale, Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale.ConclusionFour commonly used and well-validated instruments can be recommended for clinical and research use. An important area for future investigation is to harmonize these measures to compare and combine studies on delirium.

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:IntroductionOver the past 10 years, research into methods that promote the uptake, implementation and sustainability of evidence-based interventions has gathered pace. However, implementation outcomes are defined in different ways and assessed by different measures; the extent to which these measures are valid and reliable is unknown. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and appraise studies that assess the measurement properties of quantitative implementation outcome instruments used in physical healthcare settings, to advance the use of precise and accurate measures.Methods and analysisThe following databases will be searched from inception to March 2017: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. Grey literature will be sought via HMIC, OpenGrey, ProQuest for theses and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. Reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews will be hand searched. Three search strings will be combined to identify eligible studies: (1) implementation literature, (2) implementation outcomes and (3) measurement properties. Screening of titles, abstracts and full papers will be assessed for eligibility by two reviewers independently and any discrepancies resolved via consensus with the wider team. The methodological quality of the studies will be assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. A set of bespoke criteria to determine the quality of the instruments will be used, and the relationship between instrument usability and quality will be explored.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not necessary for systematic review protocols. Researchers and healthcare professionals can use the findings of this systematic review to guide the selection of implementation outcomes instruments, based on their psychometric quality, to assess the impact of their implementation efforts. The findings will also provide a useful guide for reviewers of papers and grants to determine the psychometric quality of the measures used in implementation research.Trial registration numberInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42017065348.

Project description:IntroductionPersons with intellectual disability (ID) are at a higher risk of developing dementia than persons without ID, with an expected earlier onset. Assessment methods for the general population cannot be applied for persons with ID due to their pre-existing intellectual and functional impairments. As there is no agreed-upon measure to assess dementia in persons with ID, multiple instruments for this purpose have been developed and adapted in the past decades. This review aimed to identify all available informant-based instruments for the assessment of dementia in persons with ID, to evaluate and compare them according to their measurement properties, and to provide a recommendation for the most suitable instruments. Additionally, an overview of the amount and quality of research on these instruments will be provided.Methods and analysisThis review will be conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We will adhere to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines and use a set of characteristics developed for assessment instruments for persons with ID, the Characteristics of Assessment Instruments for Psychiatric Disorders in Persons with Intellectual Developmental Disorders. Two comprehensive, systematic literature searches will be applied in 10 international databases, including ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, OpenGrey and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Risk of bias and quality assessment will be done according to COSMIN guidelines. We will apply the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the overall quality of the available evidence.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics statement is needed for this study. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at international conferences.

Project description:BackgroundA plethora of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) are being used in port wine stain (PWS) studies. It is currently unclear how valid, responsive, and reliable these are.ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review was to appraise the content validity and other measurement properties of OMIs for PWS treatment to identify the most appropriate instruments and future research priorities.MethodsThis study was performed using the updated Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology and adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Comprehensive searches in Medline and Embase were performed. Studies in which an OMI for PWS patients was developed or its measurement properties were evaluated were included. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies and instruments to perform qualitative synthesis of the evidence.ResultsIn total, 1,034 articles were screened, and 77 full-text articles were reviewed. A total of 8 studies were included that reported on 6 physician-reported OMIs of clinical improvement and 6 parent- or patient-reported OMIs of life impact, of which 3 for health-related quality of life and 1 for perceived stigmatization. Overall, the quality of OMI development was inadequate (63%) or doubtful (37%). Each instrument has undergone a very limited evaluation in PWS patients. No content validity studies were performed. The quality of evidence for content validity was very low (78%), low (15%), or moderate (7%), with sufficient comprehensibility, mostly sufficient comprehensiveness, and mixed relevance. No studies on responsiveness, minimal important change, and cross-cultural validity were retrieved. There was moderate- to very low-quality evidence for sufficient inter-rater reliability for some clinical PWS OMIs. Internal consistency and measurement error were indeterminate in all studies.ConclusionsThere was insufficient evidence to properly guide outcome selection. Additional assessment of the measurement properties of OMIs is needed, preferentially guided by a core domain set tailored to PWS.

Dataset Information

Assessment of Instruments for Measurement of Delirium Severity: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets