Dataset Information

Self-efficacy assessment tools for individuals with depression: protocol for a systematic review of the literature.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Depression is a common debilitating disease that affects individuals in all age groups. The impact of the diagnosis extends beyond the individual, with negative effects on mental health, physical health and social well-being. Self-efficacy has been referenced as an important aspect to the prognosis of mood disorders by conferring co-responsibility to the affected individual to face his/her health problems. Several assessment tools are found in the literature for measuring self-efficacy, but it is not yet clear which of these measures are more applicable to individuals with mood disorders, particularly depression. Thus, the aim of present study is to propose a systematic review to examine the psychometric properties and applicability of assessment tools designed to measure self-efficacy in individuals with symptoms and/or a diagnosis of depression.

Methods and analysis

This protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols statement and the review will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. The evaluation of the psychometric properties of the health outcome measures will be conducted according to COSMIN guidelines. Two independent reviewers will perform the electronic searches in the PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, SCOPUS and CINAHL databases, followed by the use of the 'snowball' strategy. The inclusion criteria will be (1) instrument validation studies, (2) developed with individuals of any age (3) with symptoms or a diagnosis of depression. Two independent reviewers will analyse the titles and abstracts of the articles retrieved during the search for pre-selection, followed by full-text analyses to determine inclusion in the review based on the eligibility criteria. Cases of a divergence of opinion will be resolved by a third reviewer. Descriptive analysis of the articles will be performed (data on participants, characteristics, psychometric properties and clinical usefulness of the assessment tools).

Ethics and dissemination

The proposed systematic review will provide information on assessment tools employed to measure self-efficacy with regard to coping with depression, offering data on the psychometric properties, strong and weak points, and clinical applicability. As a secondary analysis of the literature, the approval of an ethics committee is not required.

Prospero registration number

CRD42017078707.

SUBMITTER: Rosas MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6589040 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Self-efficacy assessment tools for individuals with depression: protocol for a systematic review of the literature.

Rosas Marina Araújo MA Cordeiro Tattiana Dias de Carvalho TDC Silva Tatiana de Paula Santana da TPSD Caldas Ada Salvetti Cavalcanti ASC Ribeiro Carlos Eduardo de Souza Leão CESL Marinho Manoel Henrique da Nóbrega MHDN Lima Murilo Duarte da Costa MDDC Vasconcelos Selene Cordeiro SC

BMJ open 20190618 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>Depression is a common debilitating disease that affects individuals in all age groups. The impact of the diagnosis extends beyond the individual, with negative effects on mental health, physical health and social well-being. Self-efficacy has been referenced as an important aspect to the prognosis of mood disorders by conferring co-responsibility to the affected individual to face his/her health problems. Several assessment tools are found in the literature for measuring se ...[more]

PMID: 31217313

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The abuse of alcohol and other drugs is a worldwide problem, the treatment of which poses a challenge to healthcare workers. OBJECTIVE:This study presents a proposal for a systematic review to analyse the psychometric properties of assessment tools developed to measure the self-efficacy of drug users with regard to resisting the urge to take drugs in high-risk situations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The guiding question was based on PICOS (Population Intervention Comparator Outcome Setting), and the report of the methods of review protocol was written in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Searches will be performed in the PsycINFO, Cochrane, Pubmed, Web of Science, SCOPUS and CINAHL databases, followed by the use of the 'snowball' strategy. The inclusion criteria for the articles will be (1) assessment tool validation studies; (2) assessment tools developed to measure self-efficacy; (3) quantitative measures; (4) measures designed for use on adults; (5) data from self-reports of the participants; (6) studies involving a description of psychometric properties of the measures; and (7) studies that explain how the level of self-efficacy is scored. The search, selection and analysis will be performed by two independent reviewers. In cases of a divergence of opinion, a third reviewer will be consulted. The COSMIN checklist will be used for the appraisal of the methodological quality of the assessment tools and the certainty of the evidence in the articles (risk of bias) will be analysed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This protocol does not require ethical approval. However, this protocol is part of the thesis entitled Drug-Taking Confidence Questionnaire for use in Brazil, presented for obtaining a doctorate in neuropsychiatry and behavioural sciences from the Federal University of Pernambuco, and has received approval from the human research ethics committee of the Federal University of Pernambuco (reference number: 1.179.162).The results will be disseminated to clinicians and researchers through peer-reviewed publications and conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017068555.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although a wide range of needs assessment tools for cancer patients have been developed, no standardized and commonly accepted instruments were recommended to use in clinical care. This systematic review was conducted to assess the quality of psychometric properties of needs assessment tools among cancer patients in order to help oncology healthcare professionals select the most appropriate needs assessment tools in routine clinical practice. METHODS:Searches were conducted in the electronic databases of PUBMED from 1966, CINAHL from 1960, EMBASE from 1980 and PsychINFO from 1967 as well as additional sources. The quality of psychometric properties of the recruited needs assessment tools was evaluated using the agreed quality criteria for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. RESULTS:Thirty-seven studies which evaluated the psychometric properties of 20 needs assessment tools were identified. Internal consistency was tested in 32 studies with 9 studies indicating negative rating and 4 studies intermediate rating. Less than half of the studies (13 studies) assessed test-retest reliability, and only 4 studies reported positive rating. Content validity was the most tested psychometric property appraised in 33 studies and indicated positive rating in all the evaluated studies. Structural validity was adequately evaluated in 28 studies with 23 studies reporting intermediate rating. More than half of the studies (29 studies) tested hypothesis testing and 13 studies were rated positive. Cross-cultural validity results were obtained in 13 studies with 7 studies showing negative rating. No data was available on measurement error and criterion validity. Only one study appraised responsiveness and showed intermediate rating. The Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form (SCNS-SF) is the most widely used instrument for needs assessment in cancer patients. It had strong evidence for internal consistency, content validity, structural validity and hypothesis testing, and moderate evidence for reliability and cross-cultural validity. Cancer Survivors' Unmet Needs Measure (CaSUN) reported strong or moderate evidence for internal consistency, reliability, content and structural validity, and hypothesis testing. Furthermore, Supportive Cancer Care Needs Assessment Tool for Indigenous People (SCNAT-IP) had strong evidence for content validity, and moderate evidence for internal consistency, structural validity and hypothesis testing. CONCLUSIONS:Despite several needs assessment tools exist to assess care needs in cancer patients, further improvement of already existing and promising instruments is recommended.

Project description:BackgroundAccurate and user-friendly assessment tools for quantifying alcohol consumption are a prerequisite for effective interventions to reduce alcohol-related harm. Digital assessment tools (DATs) that allow the description of consumed alcoholic drinks through animation features may facilitate more accurate reporting than conventional approaches.ObjectiveThis review aims to identify and characterize freely available DATs in English or Russian that use animation features to support the quantitative assessment of alcohol consumption (alcohol DATs) and determine the extent to which such tools have been scientifically evaluated in terms of feasibility, acceptability, and validity.MethodsSystematic English and Russian searches were conducted in iOS and Android app stores and via the Google search engine. Information on the background and content of eligible DATs was obtained from app store descriptions, websites, and test completions. A systematic literature review was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science to identify English-language studies reporting the feasibility, acceptability, and validity of animation-using alcohol DATs. Where possible, the evaluated DATs were accessed and assessed. Owing to the high heterogeneity of study designs, results were synthesized narratively.ResultsWe identified 22 eligible alcohol DATs in English, 3 (14%) of which were also available in Russian. More than 95% (21/22) of tools allowed the choice of a beverage type from a visually displayed selection. In addition, 36% (8/22) of tools enabled the choice of a drinking vessel. Only 9% (2/22) of tools allowed the simulated interactive pouring of a drink. For none of the tools published evaluation studies were identified in the literature review. The systematic literature review identified 5 exploratory studies evaluating the feasibility, acceptability, and validity of 4 animation-using alcohol DATs, 1 (25%) of which was available in the searched app stores. The evaluated tools reached moderate to high scores on user rating scales and showed fair to high convergent validity when compared with established assessment methods.ConclusionsAnimation-using alcohol DATs are available in app stores and on the web. However, they often use nondynamic features and lack scientific background information. Explorative study data suggest that such tools might enable the user-friendly and valid assessment of alcohol consumption and could thus serve as a building block in the reduction of alcohol-attributable health burden worldwide.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020172825; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020172825.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Apps have been enthusiastically adopted by the general public. They are increasingly recognized by policy-makers as a potential medium for supporting self-management of long-term conditions. We assessed the degree to which current smartphone and tablet apps for people with asthma offer content and tools of appropriate quality to support asthma self-management. METHODS: We adapted systematic review methodology to the assessment of apps. We identified English-language asthma apps for all ages through a systematic search of official app stores. We systematically assessed app content using criteria derived from international guidelines and systematic review of strategies for asthma self-management. We covered three domains: comprehensiveness of asthma information, consistency of advice with evidence and compliance with health information best practice principles. RESULTS: We identified 103 apps for asthma in English, of which 56 were sources of information about the condition and 47 provided tools for the management of asthma. No apps offered both types of functionality. Only three information apps approached our definition of comprehensiveness of information about asthma. No apps provided advice on lay management of acute asthma that included details of appropriate reliever medication use. In 32 of 72 instances, apps made unequivocal recommendations about strategies for asthma control or prophylaxis that were unsupported by current evidence. Although 90% of apps stated a clear purpose, compliance with other best practice principles for health information was variable. Contact details were located for 55%, funding source for 18% and confidentiality policy for 17%. CONCLUSIONS: No apps for people with asthma combined reliable, comprehensive information about the condition with supportive tools for self-management. Healthcare professionals considering recommending apps to patients as part of asthma self-management should exercise caution, recognizing that some apps like calculators may be unsafe; that no current app will meet the need of every patient; and that ways of working must be adapted if apps are to be introduced, supported and sustained in routine care. Policy-makers need to consider the potential role for assurance mechanisms in relation to apps. There remains much to be done if apps are to find broad use in clinical practice; clinicians cannot recommend tools that are inaccurate, unsafe or lack an evidence base.

Dataset Information

Self-efficacy assessment tools for individuals with depression: protocol for a systematic review of the literature.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Prospero registration number

Publications

Self-efficacy assessment tools for individuals with depression: protocol for a systematic review of the literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets