Dataset Information

Systematic review of the measurement properties of indices of prenatal care utilization.

ABSTRACT:

Background

An accurate assessment of the adequacy of prenatal care utilization is critical to inform the relationship between prenatal care and pregnancy outcomes. This systematic review critically appraises the evidence on measurement properties of prenatal care utilization indices and provides recommendations about which index is the most useful for this purpose.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science were systematically searched from database inception to October 2018 using keywords related to indices of prenatal care utilization. No language restrictions were imposed. Studies were included if they evaluated the reliability, validity, or responsiveness of at least one index of adequacy of prenatal care utilization. We used the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. We conducted an evidence synthesis using predefined criteria to appraise the measurement properties of the indices.

Results

From 2664 studies initially screened, 13 unique studies evaluated the measurement properties of at least one index of prenatal care utilization. Most of the indices of adequacy of prenatal care currently used in research and clinical practice have been evaluated for at least some form of reliability and/or validity. Evidence about the responsiveness to change of these indices is absent from these evaluations. The Adequacy Perinatal Care Utilization Index (APNCUI) and the Kessner Index are supported by moderate evidence regarding their reliability, predictive and concurrent validity.

Conclusion

The scientific literature has not comprehensively reported the measurement properties of commonly used indices of prenatal care utilization, and there is insufficient research to inform the choice of the best index. Lack of strong evidence about which index is the best to measure prenatal care utilization has important implications for tracking health care utilization and for formulating prenatal care recommendations.

SUBMITTER: Rowe S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7079477 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review of the measurement properties of indices of prenatal care utilization.

Rowe Stewart S Karkhaneh Zahra Z MacDonald Isaiah I Chambers Thane T Amjad Sana S Osornio-Vargas Alvaro A Chari Radha R Kumar Manoj M Ospina Maria B MB

BMC pregnancy and childbirth 20200318 1

<h4>Background</h4>An accurate assessment of the adequacy of prenatal care utilization is critical to inform the relationship between prenatal care and pregnancy outcomes. This systematic review critically appraises the evidence on measurement properties of prenatal care utilization indices and provides recommendations about which index is the most useful for this purpose.<h4>Methods</h4>MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science were systematically searched from database inception to October 2 ...[more]

PMID: 32183724

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:BackgroundContinuity of care is widely acknowledged as a core value in family medicine. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify the instruments measuring continuity of care and to assess the quality of their measurement properties.MethodsWe did a systematic review using the PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO databases, with an extensive search strategy including 'continuity of care', 'coordination of care', 'integration of care', 'patient centered care', 'case management' and its linguistic variations. We searched from 1995 to October 2011 and included articles describing the development and/or evaluation of the measurement properties of instruments measuring one or more dimensions of continuity of care (1) care from the same provider who knows and follows the patient (personal continuity), (2) communication and cooperation between care providers in one care setting (team continuity), and (3) communication and cooperation between care providers in different care settings (cross-boundary continuity). We assessed the methodological quality of the measurement properties of each instrument using the COSMIN checklist.ResultsWe included 24 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 21 instruments. Ten instruments measured all three dimensions of continuity of care. Instruments were developed for different groups of patients or providers. For most instruments, three or four of the six measurement properties were assessed (mostly internal consistency, content validity, structural validity and construct validity). Six instruments scored positive on the quality of at least three of six measurement properties.ConclusionsMost included instruments have problems with either the number or quality of its assessed measurement properties or the ability to measure all three dimensions of continuity of care. Based on the results of this review, we recommend the use of one of the four most promising instruments, depending on the target population Diabetes Continuity of Care Questionnaire, Alberta Continuity of Services Scale-Mental Health, Heart Continuity of Care Questionnaire, and Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-care is a necessary measure against occupational injuries of nurses and improves nursing performance at the bedside. Nurses have different scales to measure self-care, and researchers are confused about choosing valid and reliable scales. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the measurement properties of self-care scales in nurses to identify the best available scales.MethodsFour databases (PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and ProQuest) were systematically searched, with no date limiters, until 9 Jun 2023. A manual search was performed with Google Scholar and the reference list of articles to complete the search. Studies aiming to develop or determine the measurement properties of self-care in nurses were included. Based on Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments, the methodological quality of the studies was determined, and the result of each study on a measurement property was rated (sufficient, insufficient, or indeterminate). The quality of the evidence was graded using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach (high, moderate, low, or very low). These processes were used to make recommendations and identify the best scale to assess self-care in nurses.ResultsOut of 8601 articles, six articles with five different scales were included. Only internal consistency was reported across all scales. Criterion validity, measurement error, responsiveness, feasibility, and interpretability, were not reported in any of them. Content validity was reported only in two studies with inconsistent results and low-quality evidence. None of the scales had methodological quality with a rating of very good and sufficient high-quality evidence for all measurement properties.ConclusionsNone of the scales is strongly recommended to measure self-care in nurses. Only the Professional self-care scale is temporarily recommended until their quality is assessed in future studies. Considering that the content of the examined scales does not meet all the professional self-care needs of nurses, designing a valid, reliable, and specialized scale for nurses is needed.

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:BackgroundSituation awareness (SA) is a key factor in accountability and ensuring patient safety in health care. SA is an essential element to research on human factors in healthcare. It is essential to identify valid instruments for measuring this concept and assessing how it is affected by interventions and educational methods.MethodsThis systematic review aimed to assess the measurement properties of situation awareness instruments in health care providers' (HCPS) using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Four databases (Medline (through PubMed), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science) were systematically searched. A manual search was also conducted on Google Scholar and the reference list of the included primary studies to supplement the electronic search. Studies aiming to determine the measurement properties of SA instruments or non-technical skills in HCPS were included. The overall results for each measurement property were reported as sufficient, insufficient, inconsistent, or indeterminate, and the quality of evidence was reported as high, moderate, low, or very low.ResultsA total of 25 studies and 15 instruments were included in the study. More than one measurement property was reported in some of the studies, and none of the studies presented all measurement properties. The most common measurement properties were content validity (12/25) and internal consistency (12/25). Cross-cultural validity and responsiveness were not investigated in any study. Evidence quality for the measurement properties was not high in any of the 15 instruments.ConclusionsNone of the instruments can be recommended as the most suitable instrument, and all instruments were classified as promising instruments in need of further psychometric assessment. This systematic review proves the dire need for the development and psychometric evaluation of instruments to measure SA in HCPs in clinical settings.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020147349.

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

Systematic review of the measurement properties of indices of prenatal care utilization.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Systematic review of the measurement properties of indices of prenatal care utilization.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets