Dataset Information

Measures of evidence-informed decision-making competence attributes: a psychometric systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The current state of evidence regarding measures that assess evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) competence attributes (i.e., knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs, behaviours) among nurses is unknown. This systematic review provides a narrative synthesis of the psychometric properties and general characteristics of EIDM competence attribute measures in nursing.

Methods

The search strategy included online databases, hand searches, grey literature, and content experts. To align with the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews, psychometric outcome data (i.e., acceptability, reliability, validity) were extracted in duplicate, while all remaining data (i.e., study and measure characteristics) were extracted by one team member and checked by a second member for accuracy. Acceptability data was defined as measure completion time and overall rate of missing data. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing was used as the guiding framework to define reliability, and validity evidence, identified as a unified concept comprised of four validity sources: content, response process, internal structure and relationships to other variables. A narrative synthesis of measure and study characteristics, and psychometric outcomes is presented across measures and settings.

Results

A total of 5883 citations were screened with 103 studies and 35 unique measures included in the review. Measures were used or tested in acute care (n?=?31 measures), public health (n?=?4 measures), home health (n?=?4 measures), and long-term care (n?=?1 measure). Half of the measures assessed a single competence attribute (n?=?19; 54.3%). Three measures (9%) assessed four competence attributes of knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs and behaviours. Regarding acceptability, overall missing data ranged from 1.6-25.6% across 11 measures and completion times ranged from 5 to 25?min (n?=?4 measures). Internal consistency reliability was commonly reported (21 measures), with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.45-0.98. Two measures reported four sources of validity evidence, and over half (n?=?19; 54%) reported one source of validity evidence.

Conclusions

This review highlights a gap in the testing and use of competence attribute measures related to evidence-informed decision making in community-based and long-term care settings. Further development of measures is needed conceptually and psychometrically, as most measures assess only a single competence attribute, and lack assessment and evidence of reliability and sources of established validity evidence.

Registration

PROSPERO #CRD42018088754.

SUBMITTER: Belita E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7254762 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Measures of evidence-informed decision-making competence attributes: a psychometric systematic review.

Belita Emily E Squires Janet E JE Yost Jennifer J Ganann Rebecca R Burnett Trish T Dobbins Maureen M

BMC nursing 20200527

<h4>Background</h4>The current state of evidence regarding measures that assess evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) competence attributes (i.e., knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs, behaviours) among nurses is unknown. This systematic review provides a narrative synthesis of the psychometric properties and general characteristics of EIDM competence attribute measures in nursing.<h4>Methods</h4>The search strategy included online databases, hand searches, grey literature, and content expert ...[more]

PMID: 32514242

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere are growing professional expectations for nurses to engage in and develop competence in evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) due to opportunities for improved client and community outcomes and provision of the highest quality of care. However, EIDM is underdeveloped, with low implementation rates among nurses. The use of indicators to assess EIDM performance has potential to encourage nurses' engagement in EIDM through competence recognition and support assessment of strengths and competency gaps for individual nurses and organizations. Currently, the state of evidence regarding measures that assess EIDM competence attributes (i.e., knowledge, skills, beliefs/values, behaviors) among nurses is unknown. This systematic review aims to address this gap through a narrative synthesis of the characteristics and psychometric properties of EIDM competence measures.MethodsThe search strategy, developed in consultation with a Health Sciences Librarian, consists of online databases, contacting experts, hand searching reference lists, key journals, websites, conference proceedings, and grey literature. Studies will be included if the following criteria are met: (1) sample includes practicing nurses and data for nurses are reported separately; (2) conducted in any healthcare setting; (3) quantitative or mixed-methods design; (4) reports use or testing of a measure assessing EIDM competence attributes (i.e., knowledge, skills, attitudes/values, and/or behaviors); and (5) published in English. Screening will be conducted independently by two reviewers using a two-stage process: (1) title and abstract level; and (2) full-text level. Data extraction of study characteristics (e.g., sample, setting) will be conducted by a single reviewer and checked for accuracy by a second reviewer. Psychometric properties of acceptability, reliability, and validity evidence for each measure will be independently extracted by two reviewers. Data on measures will be synthesized narratively according to acceptability, number of validity evidence sources established, and reliability of scores. Data pertaining to population and healthcare setting will also be reported for each measure.DiscussionThis systematic review will provide a current understanding about the state of evidence with respect to EIDM competence measures in nursing to assist in determining potentially relevant and robust measures for use in different nursing practice settings.Systematic review registrationProtocol registered in PROSPERO Registration #: CRD42018088754.

Project description:BackgroundNurses are increasingly expected to engage in evidence-informed decision making (EIDM); the use of research evidence with information about patient preferences, clinical context and resources, and their clinical expertise in decision making. Strategies for enhancing EIDM have been synthesized in high-quality systematic reviews, yet most relate to physicians or mixed disciplines. Existing reviews, specific to nursing, have not captured a broad range of strategies for promoting the knowledge and skills for EIDM, patient outcomes as a result of EIDM, or contextual information for why these strategies "work."AimTo conduct a scoping review to identify and map the literature related to strategies implemented among nurses in tertiary care for promoting EIDM knowledge, skills, and behaviours, as well as patient outcomes and contextual implementation details.MethodsA search strategy was developed and executed to identify relevant research evidence. Participants included registered nurses, clinical nurse specialists, nurse practitioners, and advanced practice nurses. Strategies were those enhancing nurses' EIDM knowledge, skills, or behaviours, as well as patient outcomes. Relevant studies included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, cluster randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials (including controlled before and after studies), cluster non-randomized trials, interrupted time series designs, prospective cohort studies, mixed-method studies, and qualitative studies. Two reviewers performed study selection and data extraction using standardized forms. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or third party adjudication.ResultsUsing a narrative synthesis, the body of research was mapped by design, clinical areas, strategies, and provider and patient outcomes to determine areas appropriate for a systematic review.ConclusionsThere are a sufficiently high number of studies to conduct a more focused systematic review by care settings, study design, implementation strategies, or outcomes. A focused review could assist in determining which strategies can be recommended for enhancing EIDM knowledge, skills, and behaviours among nurses in tertiary care.

Project description:BackgroundPublic health professionals are increasingly expected to engage in evidence-informed decision making to inform practice and policy decisions. Evidence-informed decision making involves the use of research evidence along with expertise, existing public health resources, knowledge about community health issues, the local context and community, and the political climate. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools has identified a seven step process for evidence-informed decision making. Tools have been developed to support public health professionals as they work through each of these steps. This paper provides an overview of tools used in three Canadian public health departments involved in a study to develop capacity for evidence-informed decision making.MethodsAs part of a knowledge translation and exchange intervention, a Knowledge Broker worked with public health professionals to identify and apply tools for use with each of the steps of evidence-informed decision making. The Knowledge Broker maintained a reflective journal and interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of decision makers and public health professionals. This paper presents qualitative analysis of the perceived usefulness and usability of the tools.ResultsTools were used in the health departments to assist in: question identification and clarification; searching for the best available research evidence; assessing the research evidence for quality through critical appraisal; deciphering the 'actionable message(s)' from the research evidence; tailoring messages to the local context to ensure their relevance and suitability; deciding whether and planning how to implement research evidence in the local context; and evaluating the effectiveness of implementation efforts. Decision makers provided descriptions of how the tools were used within the health departments and made suggestions for improvement. Overall, the tools were perceived as valuable for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making.ConclusionTools are available to support the process of evidence-informed decision making among public health professionals. The usability and usefulness of these tools for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making are discussed, including recommendations for the tools' application in other public health settings beyond this study. Knowledge and awareness of these tools may assist other health professionals in their efforts to implement evidence-informed practice.

Project description:BackgroundWith rising healthcare costs comes an increasing demand for evidence-informed resource allocation using economic evaluations worldwide. Furthermore, standardization of costing and reporting methods both at international and national levels are imperative to make economic evaluations a valid tool for decision-making. The aim of this review is to assess the availability and consistency of costing evidence that could be used for decision-making in Austria. It describes systematically the current economic evaluation and costing studies landscape focusing on the applied costing methods and their reporting standards. Findings are discussed in terms of their likely impacts on evidence-based decision-making and potential suggestions for areas of development.MethodsA systematic literature review of English and German language peer-reviewed as well as grey literature (2004-2015) was conducted to identify Austrian economic analyses. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SSCI, EconLit, NHS EED and Scopus were searched. Publication and study characteristics, costing methods, reporting standards and valuation sources were systematically synthesised and assessed.ResultsA total of 93 studies were included. 87% were journal articles, 13% were reports. 41% of all studies were full economic evaluations, mostly cost-effectiveness analyses. Based on relevant standards the most commonly observed limitations were that 60% of the studies did not clearly state an analytical perspective, 25% of the studies did not provide the year of costing, 27% did not comprehensively list all valuation sources, and 38% did not report all applied unit costs.ConclusionThere are substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods and reporting standards in economic analyses in Austria, which may contribute to a low acceptance and lack of interest in economic evaluation-informed decision making. To improve comparability and quality of future studies, national costing guidelines should be updated with more specific methodological guidance and a national reference cost library should be set up to allow harmonisation of valuation methods.

Project description:ObjectiveThe propensity of people vulnerable to suicide to make poor life decisions is increasingly well documented. Do they display an extreme degree of decision biases? The present study used a behavioral-decision approach to examine the susceptibility of low-lethality and high-lethality suicide attempters to common decision biases that may ultimately obscure alternative solutions and deterrents to suicide in a crisis.MethodWe assessed older and middle-aged (42-97 years) individuals who made high-lethality (medically serious) (n = 31) and low-lethality suicide attempts (n = 29). Comparison groups included suicide ideators (n = 30), nonsuicidal depressed participants (n = 53), and psychiatrically healthy participants (n = 28). Attempters, ideators, and nonsuicidal depressed participants had nonpsychotic major depression (DSM-IV criteria). Decision biases included sunk cost (inability to abort an action for which costs are irrecoverable), framing (responding to superficial features of how a problem is presented), underconfidence/overconfidence (appropriateness of confidence in knowledge), and inconsistent risk perception. Data were collected between June 2010 and February 2014.ResultsBoth high- and low-lethality attempters were more susceptible to framing effects as compared to the other groups included in this study (P ≤ .05, ηp2 = 0.06). In contrast, low-lethality attempters were more susceptible to sunk costs than both the comparison groups and high-lethality attempters (P ≤ .01, ηp2 = 0.09). These group differences remained after accounting for age, global cognitive performance, and impulsive traits. Premorbid IQ partially explained group differences in framing effects.ConclusionsSuicide attempters' failure to resist framing may reflect their inability to consider a decision from an objective standpoint in a crisis. Failure of low-lethality attempters to resist sunk cost may reflect their tendency to confuse past and future costs of their behavior, lowering their threshold for acting on suicidal thoughts.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of research evidence to underpin public health policy is strongly promoted. However, its implementation has not been straightforward. The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesise empirical evidence on the use of research evidence by public health decision makers in settings with universal health care systems.MethodsTo locate eligible studies, 13 bibliographic databases were screened, organisational websites were scanned, key informants were contacted and bibliographies of included studies were scrutinised. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Data were synthesised as a narrative review.Findings18 studies were included: 15 qualitative studies, and three surveys. Their methodological quality was mixed. They were set in a range of country and decision making settings. Study participants included 1063 public health decision makers, 72 researchers, and 174 with overlapping roles. Decision making processes varied widely between settings, and were viewed differently by key players. A range of research evidence was accessed. However, there was no reliable evidence on the extent of its use. Its impact was often indirect, competing with other influences. Barriers to the use of research evidence included: decision makers' perceptions of research evidence; the gulf between researchers and decision makers; the culture of decision making; competing influences on decision making; and practical constraints. Suggested (but largely untested) ways of overcoming these barriers included: research targeted at the needs of decision makers; research clearly highlighting key messages; and capacity building. There was little evidence on the role of research evidence in decision making to reduce inequalities.ConclusionsTo more effectively implement research informed public health policy, action is required by decision makers and researchers to address the barriers identified in this systematic review. There is an urgent need for evidence to support the use of research evidence to inform public health decision making to reduce inequalities.

Project description:AimsOccupational Burnout (OB) is currently measured through several Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and some of them have become widely used in occupational health research and practice. We, therefore, aimed to review and grade the psychometric validity of the five OB PROMs considered as valid for OB measure in mental health professionals (the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the Pines' Burnout Measure (BM), the Psychologist Burnout Inventory (PBI), the OLdenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) and the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI)).MethodsWe conducted systematic literature searches in MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE databases. We reviewed studies published between January 1980 and September 2018 following a methodological framework, in which each step of PROM validation, the reference method, analytical technics and result interpretation criteria were assessed. Using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments we evaluated the risk of bias in studies assessing content and criterion validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, hypotheses testing and responsiveness of each PROM. Finally, we assessed the level of evidence for the validity of each PROM using the GRADE approach.ResultsWe identified 6541 studies, 19 of which were included for review. Fifteen studies dealt with MBI whereas BM, PBI, OLBI and CBI were each examined in only one study. OLBI had the most complete validation, followed by CBI, MBI, BM and PBI, respectively. When examining the result interpretation correctness, the strongest disagreement was observed for MBI (27% of results), BM (25%) and CBI (17%). There was no disagreement regarding PBI and OLBI. For OLBI and CBI, the quality of evidence for sufficient content validity, the crucial psychometric property, was moderate; for MBI, BM and PBI, it was very low.ConclusionTo be validly and reliably used in medical research and practice, PROM should exhibit robust psychometric properties. Among the five PROMs reviewed, CBI and, to a lesser extent, OLBI meet this prerequisite. The cross-cultural validity of these PROMs was beyond the scope of our work and should be addressed in the future. Moreover, the development of a diagnostic standard for OB would be helpful to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the PROMs and further reexamine their validity.The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42019124621).

Project description:Despite widespread advocacy for shared decision making (SDM), the empirical evidence regarding its effectiveness to improve patient outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the empirical evidence linking patient outcomes and SDM, when the decision-making process has been explicitly measured, and to identify under what measurement perspectives SDM is associated with which types of patient outcomes (affective-cognitive, behavioral, and health).PubMed (through December 2012) and hand search of article bibliographies.Studies were included if they empirically 1) measured SDM in the context of a patient-clinician interaction and 2) evaluated the relationship between SDM and at least 1 patient outcome.Study results were categorized by SDM measurement perspective (patient-reported, clinician-reported, or observer-rated) and outcome type (affective-cognitive, behavioral, or health).Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Thirty-three used patient-reported measures of SDM, 6 used observer-rated measures, and 2 used clinician-reported measures. Ninety-seven unique patient outcomes were assessed; 51% affective-cognitive, 28% behavioral, and 21% health. Only 43% of assessments (n = 42) found a significant and positive relationship between SDM and the patient outcome. This proportion varied by SDM measurement perspective and outcome category. It was found that 52% of outcomes assessed with patient-reported SDM were significant and positive, compared with 21% with observer-rated and 0% with clinician-reported SDM. Regardless of measurement perspective, SDM was most likely to be associated with affective-cognitive patient outcomes (54%), compared with 37% of behavioral and 25% of health outcomes.The relatively small number of studies precludes meta-analysis. Because the study inclusion and exclusion criteria required both an empirical measure of SDM and an assessment of the association between that measure and a patient outcome, most included studies were observational in design.SDM, when perceived by patients as occurring, tends to result in improved affective-cognitive outcomes. Evidence is lacking for the association between empirical measures of SDM and patient behavioral and health outcomes.

Dataset Information

Measures of evidence-informed decision-making competence attributes: a psychometric systematic review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Registration

Publications

Measures of evidence-informed decision-making competence attributes: a psychometric systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets