Dataset Information

Questionnaires in otology: a systematic mapping review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable tools in assessing the quality of health care from a patient perspective and are increasingly used by otologists. However, selecting the right questionnaire has proven to be a difficult and time-consuming task. To facilitate this process, we will provide a comprehensive overview of existing questionnaires.

Methods

A systematic literature search has been conducted on August 26, 2019, using the EMBASE and PubMed medical databases. 13,345 unique records were extracted. Questionnaires addressing any otologic complaint (tinnitus, hearing loss, earache, otorrhoea, and ear-related pressure sensation, vertigo, itch, or dysgeusia) were identified. All questionnaires were evaluated for eligibility by two independent researchers. Inclusion criteria were adult population, closed-ended questions, English language of the questionnaire, and the availability of the original article describing the development of the instrument or a validation paper describing the validation process written in English.

Objective

Create a comprehensive overview of all validated closed-ended otology questionnaires for adults and demonstrate their basic characteristics.

Main outcome measure

The number of questionnaires in English literature for the adult population, subdivided per symptom and target population.

Results

A total of 155 unique questionnaires were selected: 33 tinnitus questionnaires, 23 vertigo questionnaires, 84 hearing loss questionnaires, and 15 multiple complaint questionnaires. A protocol for further questionnaire comparison is presented.

Discussion

Two separate sequential searches were needed to identify unique questionnaires and to identify their development/validation paper. Although many ear diseases create multiple symptoms, the majority of the questionnaires were symptom specific.

Conclusion

Many questionnaires concerning ear-related symptoms exist and predominantly concern hearing loss, vertigo, or tinnitus. Only a few questionnaires cover the multiple complaints that ear diseases can create. The presented overview is the most comprehensive overview of otology questionnaires in literature to date. It will serve as a basis for questionnaire selection by professionals and could serve as a protocol for questionnaire selection in other fields.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42017058155.

SUBMITTER: Viergever K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8059288 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the effect of routinely administered psychiatric questionnaires on the recognition, management, and outcome of psychiatric disorders in non-psychiatric settings.Data sourcesEmbase, Medline, PsycLIT, Cinahl, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and hand searches of key journals.MethodsA systematic review of randomised controlled trials of the administration and routine feedback of psychiatric screening and outcome questionnaires to clinicians in non-psychiatric settings. Narrative overview of key design features and end points, together with a random effects quantitative synthesis of comparable studies.Main outcome measuresRecognition of psychiatric disorders after feedback of questionnaire results; interventions for psychiatric disorders; and outcome of psychiatric disorders.ResultsNine randomised studies were identified that examined the use of common psychiatric instruments in primary care and general hospital settings. Studies compared the effect of the administration of these instruments followed by the feedback of the results to clinicians, with administration with no feedback. Meta-analytic pooling was possible for four of these studies (2457 participants), which measured the effect of feedback on the recognition of depressive disorders. Routine administration and feedback of scores for all patients (irrespective of score) did not increase the overall rate of recognition of mental disorders such as anxiety and depression (relative risk of detection of depression by clinician after feedback 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.09). Two studies showed that routine administration followed by selective feedback for only high scorers increased the rate of recognition of depression (relative risk of detection of depression after feedback 2.64, 1.62 to 4.31). This increased recognition, however, did not translate into an increased rate of intervention. Overall, studies of routine administration of psychiatric measures did not show an effect on patient outcome.ConclusionsThe routine measurement of outcome is a costly exercise. Little evidence shows that it is of benefit in improving psychosocial outcomes of those with psychiatric disorder managed in non-psychiatric settings.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of e-health can lead to several positive outcomes. However, the potential for e-health to improve healthcare is partially dependent on its ease of use. In order to determine the usability for any technology, rigorously developed and appropriate measures must be chosen.ObjectivesTo identify psychometrically tested questionnaires that measure usability of e-health tools, and to appraise their generalizability, attributes coverage, and quality.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of studies that measured usability of e-health tools using four databases (Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, and HAPI). Non-primary research, studies that did not report measures, studies with children or people with cognitive limitations, and studies about assistive devices or medical equipment were systematically excluded. Two authors independently extracted information including: questionnaire name, number of questions, scoring method, item generation, and psychometrics using a data extraction tool with pre-established categories and a quality appraisal scoring table.ResultsUsing a broad search strategy, 5,558 potentially relevant papers were identified. After removing duplicates and applying exclusion criteria, 35 articles remained that used 15 unique questionnaires. From the 15 questionnaires, only 5 were general enough to be used across studies. Usability attributes covered by the questionnaires were: learnability (15), efficiency (12), and satisfaction (11). Memorability (1) was the least covered attribute. Quality appraisal showed that face/content (14) and construct (7) validity were the most frequent types of validity assessed. All questionnaires reported reliability measurement. Some questionnaires scored low in the quality appraisal for the following reasons: limited validity testing (7), small sample size (3), no reporting of user centeredness (9) or feasibility estimates of time, effort, and expense (7).ConclusionsExisting questionnaires provide a foundation for research on e-health usability. However, future research is needed to broaden the coverage of the usability attributes and psychometric properties of the available questionnaires.

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:BackgroundIn order to assess physical activity (PA) during pregnancy, it is important to choose the instrument with the best measurement properties.ObjectivesTo systematically summarize, appraise, and compare the measurement properties of all self-administered questionnaires assessing PA in pregnancy.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and SPORTDiscus with the following inclusion criteria: (i) the study reported at least one measurement property (reliability, criterion validity, construct validity, responsiveness) of a self-administered questionnaire; (ii) the questionnaire intended to measure PA; (iii) the questionnaire was evaluated in healthy pregnant women; and (iv) the study was published in English. We evaluated results, quality of individual studies, and quality of evidence using a standardized checklist (Quality Assessment of Physical Activity Questionnaires [QAPAQ]) and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.ResultsSeventeen articles, reporting 18 studies of 11 different PA questionnaires (17 versions), were included. Most questionnaire versions showed insufficient measurement properties. Only the French and Turkish versions of the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ) showed both sufficient reliability and construct validity. However, all versions of the PPAQ pooled together showed insufficient construct validity. The quality of individual studies was usually high for reliability but varied considerably for construct validity. Overall, the quality of evidence was very low to moderate.ConclusionsWe recommend the PPAQ to assess PA in pregnancy, although the pooled results revealed insufficient construct validity. The lack of appropriate standards in data collection and processing criteria for objective devices in measuring PA during pregnancy attenuates the quality of evidence. Therefore, research on the validity of comparison instruments in pregnancy followed by consensus on validation reference criteria and standards of PA measurement is needed.