Dataset Information

Psychometric properties of burnout measures: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Occupational 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)).

Methods

We 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.

Results

We 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.

Conclusion

To 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).

SUBMITTER: Shoman Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8057391 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionImproving social inclusion opportunities for population health has been identified as a priority area for international policy. There is a need to comprehensively examine and evaluate the quality of psychometric properties of measures of social inclusion that are used to guide social policy and outcomes.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review of the literature on all current measures of social inclusion for any population group, to evaluate the quality of the psychometric properties of identified measures, and to evaluate if they capture the construct of social inclusion.MethodsA systematic search was performed using five electronic databases: CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, ERIC and Pubmed and grey literature were sourced to identify measures of social inclusion. The psychometric properties of the social inclusion measures were evaluated against the COSMIN taxonomy of measurement properties using pre-set psychometric criteria.ResultsOf the 109 measures identified, twenty-five measures, involving twenty-five studies and one manual met the inclusion criteria. The overall quality of the reviewed measures was variable, with the Social and Community Opportunities Profile-Short, Social Connectedness Scale and the Social Inclusion Scale demonstrating the strongest evidence for sound psychometric quality. The most common domain included in the measures was connectedness (21), followed by participation (19); the domain of citizenship was covered by the least number of measures (10). No single instrument measured all aspects within the three domains of social inclusion. Of the measures with sound psychometric evidence, the Social and Community Opportunities Profile-Short captured the construct of social inclusion best.ConclusionsThe overall quality of the psychometric properties demonstrate that the current suite of available instruments for the measurement of social inclusion are promising but need further refinement. There is a need for a universal working definition of social inclusion as an overarching construct for ongoing research in the area of the psychometric properties of social inclusion instruments.

Project description:BackgroundSignificant resources are being invested into eHealth technology to improve health care. Few resources have focused on evaluating the impact of use on patient outcomes A standardized set of metrics used across health systems and research will enable aggregation of data to inform improved implementation, clinical practice, and ultimately health outcomes associated with use of patient-facing eHealth technologies.ObjectiveThe objective of this project was to conduct a systematic review to (1) identify existing instruments for eHealth research and implementation evaluation from the patient's point of view, (2) characterize measurement components, and (3) assess psychometrics.MethodsConcepts from existing models and published studies of technology use and adoption were identified and used to inform a search strategy. Search terms were broadly categorized as platforms (eg, email), measurement (eg, survey), function/information use (eg, self-management), health care occupations (eg, nurse), and eHealth/telemedicine (eg, mHealth). A computerized database search was conducted through June 2014. Included articles (1) described development of an instrument, or (2) used an instrument that could be traced back to its original publication, or (3) modified an instrument, and (4) with full text in English language, and (5) focused on the patient perspective on technology, including patient preferences and satisfaction, engagement with technology, usability, competency and fluency with technology, computer literacy, and trust in and acceptance of technology. The review was limited to instruments that reported at least one psychometric property. Excluded were investigator-developed measures, disease-specific assessments delivered via technology or telephone (eg, a cancer-coping measure delivered via computer survey), and measures focused primarily on clinician use (eg, the electronic health record).ResultsThe search strategy yielded 47,320 articles. Following elimination of duplicates and non-English language publications (n=14,550) and books (n=27), another 31,647 articles were excluded through review of titles. Following a review of the abstracts of the remaining 1096 articles, 68 were retained for full-text review. Of these, 16 described an instrument and six used an instrument; one instrument was drawn from the GEM database, resulting in 23 articles for inclusion. None included a complete psychometric evaluation. The most frequently assessed property was internal consistency (21/23, 91%). Testing for aspects of validity ranged from 48% (11/23) to 78% (18/23). Approximately half (13/23, 57%) reported how to score the instrument. Only six (26%) assessed the readability of the instrument for end users, although all the measures rely on self-report.ConclusionsAlthough most measures identified in this review were published after the year 2000, rapidly changing technology makes instrument development challenging. Platform-agnostic measures need to be developed that focus on concepts important for use of any type of eHealth innovation. At present, there are important gaps in the availability of psychometrically sound measures to evaluate eHealth technologies.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to summarise the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) measuring financial toxicity (FT) in cancer survivors.DesignThis systematic review was conducted according to the guidance of the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology.Data sourcesComprehensive searches were performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest and Cochrane Library from database inception to February 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included studies that reported any PROMs for measuring FT in cancer survivors who were ≥18 years old. FT was defined as perceived subjective financial distress resulting from objective financial burden. Studies that were not validation studies and that used a PROM only as an outcome measurement were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data from the included papers. We used the COSMIN criteria to summarise and evaluate the psychometric properties of each study regarding structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing for construct validity, cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, criterion validity and responsiveness.ResultsA total of 23 articles (21 PROMs) were eligible for inclusion in this study. The findings highlighted that the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) had an adequate development process and showed better psychometric properties than other PROMs, especially in internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.92), reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.80) and hypothesis testing (r=0.42-0.20).ConclusionsFrom a psychometric property perspective, the COST could be recommended as the most suitable worldwide available measure for use in research and clinical practice across different contexts. We suggest that PROMs should be selected only after careful consideration of the local socioeconomic context. Future studies are warranted to develop various FT PROMs based on different social and cultural backgrounds and to clarify the theoretical grounds for assessing FT.

Project description:PurposeTo review studies about the reliability and validity of self-reported alcohol consumption measures among adults, an area which needs updating to reflect current research.MethodsDatabases (PUBMED (1966-present), MEDLINE (1946-present), EMBASE (1947-present), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1937-present), PsycINFO (1887-present) and Social Science Citation Index (1976-present)) were searched systematically for studies from inception to 11th August 2017. Pairs of independent reviewers screened study titles, abstracts and full texts with high agreement and a third author resolved disagreements. A comprehensive quality assessment was conducted of the reported psychometric properties of measures of alcohol consumption using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) to derive ratings of poor, fair, good or excellent for each checklist item relating to each psychometric property.ResultsTwenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria and, collectively, they investigated twenty-one short-term recall measures, fourteen quantity-frequency measures and eleven graduated-frequency measures. All measures demonstrated adequate/good test-retest reliability and convergent validity. Quantity-frequency measures demonstrated adequate/good criterion validity; graduated-frequency and short-term recall measures demonstrated adequate/good divergent validity. Quantity-frequency measures and short-term recall measures demonstrated adequate/good hypothesis validity; short-term recall measures demonstrated adequate construct validity. Methodological quality varied within and between studies.ConclusionsIt was difficult to discern conclusively which measure was the most reliable and valid given that no study assessed all psychometric properties and the included studies varied in the psychometric properties that they selected to assess. However, when the results from the range of studies were considered and summed, they tended to indicate that the quantity-frequency measure compared to the other two measures performed best in psychometric terms and, therefore, it is likely to produce the most reliable and valid assessment of alcohol consumption in population surveys.

Project description:BackgroundIn healthcare, a gap exists between what is known from research and what is practiced. Understanding this gap depends upon our ability to robustly measure research utilization.ObjectivesThe objectives of this systematic review were: to identify self-report measures of research utilization used in healthcare, and to assess the psychometric properties (acceptability, reliability, and validity) of these measures.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of literature reporting use or development of self-report research utilization measures. Our search included: multiple databases, ancestry searches, and a hand search. Acceptability was assessed by examining time to complete the measure and missing data rates. Our approach to reliability and validity assessment followed that outlined in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.ResultsOf 42,770 titles screened, 97 original studies (108 articles) were included in this review. The 97 studies reported on the use or development of 60 unique self-report research utilization measures. Seven of the measures were assessed in more than one study. Study samples consisted of healthcare providers (92 studies) and healthcare decision makers (5 studies). No studies reported data on acceptability of the measures. Reliability was reported in 32 (33%) of the studies, representing 13 of the 60 measures. Internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) reliability was reported in 31 studies; values exceeded 0.70 in 29 studies. Test-retest reliability was reported in 3 studies with Pearson's r coefficients > 0.80. No validity information was reported for 12 of the 60 measures. The remaining 48 measures were classified into a three-level validity hierarchy according to the number of validity sources reported in 50% or more of the studies using the measure. Level one measures (n = 6) reported evidence from any three (out of four possible) Standards validity sources (which, in the case of single item measures, was all applicable validity sources). Level two measures (n = 16) had evidence from any two validity sources, and level three measures (n = 26) from only one validity source.ConclusionsThis review reveals significant underdevelopment in the measurement of research utilization. Substantial methodological advances with respect to construct clarity, use of research utilization and related theory, use of measurement theory, and psychometric assessment are required. Also needed are improved reporting practices and the adoption of a more contemporary view of validity (i.e., the Standards) in future research utilization measurement studies.