Dataset Information

What makes a good quality indicator set? A systematic review of criteria.

ABSTRACT:

Background

While single indicators measure a specific aspect of quality (e.g. timely support during labour), users of these indicators, such as patients, providers and policy-makers, are typically interested in some broader construct (e.g. quality of maternity care) whose measurement requires a set of indicators. However, guidance on desirable properties of indicator sets is lacking.

Objective

Based on the premise that a set of valid indicators does not guarantee a valid set of indicators, the aim of this review is 2-fold: First, we introduce content validity as a desirable property of indicator sets and review the extent to which studies in the peer-reviewed health care quality literature address this criterion. Second, to obtain a complete inventory of criteria, we examine what additional criteria of quality indicator sets were used so far.

Methods

We searched the databases Web of Science, Medline, Cinahl and PsycInfo from inception to May 2021 and the reference lists of included studies. English- or German-language, peer-reviewed studies concerned with desirable characteristics of quality indicator sets were included. Applying qualitative content analysis, two authors independently coded the articles using a structured coding scheme and discussed conflicting codes until consensus was reached.

Results

Of 366 studies screened, 62 were included in the review. Eighty-five per cent (53/62) of studies addressed at least one of the component criteria of content validity (content coverage, proportional representation and contamination) and 15% (9/62) addressed all component criteria. Studies used various content domains to structure the targeted construct (e.g. quality dimensions, elements of the care pathway and policy priorities), providing a framework to assess content validity. The review revealed four additional substantive criteria for indicator sets: cost of measurement (21% [13/62] of the included studies), prioritization of 'essential' indicators (21% [13/62]), avoidance of redundancy (13% [8/62]) and size of the set (15% [9/62]). Additionally, four procedural criteria were identified: stakeholder involvement (69% [43/62]), using a conceptual framework (44% [27/62]), defining the purpose of measurement (26% [16/62]) and transparency of the development process (8% [5/62]).

Conclusion

The concept of content validity and its component criteria help assessing whether conclusions based on a set of indicators are valid conclusions about the targeted construct. To develop a valid indicator set, careful definition of the targeted construct including its (sub-)domains is paramount. Developers of quality indicators should specify the purpose of measurement and consider trade-offs with other criteria for indicator sets whose application may reduce content validity (e.g. costs of measurement) in light thereof.

SUBMITTER: Schang L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8325455 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:We explored traits that promote plant invasions. External factors affecting invasion success consist of various abiotic and biotic constraints. How well plants perform under those depends on multiple characteristics, such as life history traits, genetic variation patterns, competitive and dispersal abilities, phenotypic plasticity, resistance, tolerance, and possibly allelopathic interactions. Since the introduction of invasive species is often connected with humans, their geographical distribution and differentiation may not reflect adaptation. However, a lack of adaptation may be compensated for by repeated introductions via mixing genotypes from multiple populations or through novel mutations. As a case study, we used data from the Global Invasive Species Database of IUCN and attempted to reveal factors contributing to invasiveness. The most prevalent features are that the dispersal is strongly human assisted, many species are used as ornamentals, disturbed habitats are favored, and most species are perennial. Distribution features show that the worst invasive species typically have a narrower native distribution, but both groups, i.e., most serious invasive and other listed invasive species, have commonly developed a multicontinental distribution. The change in the multicontinental distribution from 6% to 63% in most serious invasive species reflects their effectiveness in global dispersal and establishment. High proportions of invasive species in both groups have mixed reproduction systems, i.e., they have the ability to propagate both sexually and asexually (57% and 50%, respectively). This provides flexibility for spreading and establishment. A lower proportion of the worst invasive species was mainly/only sexual (23%, often hermaphrodites) when compared to other invasive plants (40%). In the case of sexual reproduction, hermaphroditism combined with self-compatibility may enhance invasiveness, since selfing allows fertilization and recombination even under low population densities. Overall, the ability for asexual propagation and, in the case of sexuality, hermaphroditism, is an asset in the invasion process.

Project description:BackgroundThe Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Data Set (RAI-MDS) 2.0 is designed to collect the minimum amount of data to guide care planning and monitoring for residents in long-term care settings. These data have been used to compute indicators of care quality. Use of the quality indicators to inform quality improvement initiatives is contingent upon the validity and reliability of the indicators. The purpose of this review was to systematically examine published and grey research reports in order to assess the state of the science regarding the validity and reliability of the RAI-MDS 2.0 Quality Indicators (QIs).MethodsWe systematically reviewed the evidence for the validity and reliability of the RAI-MDS 2.0 QIs. A comprehensive literature search identified relevant original research published, in English, prior to December 2008. Fourteen articles and one report examining the validity and/or reliability of the RAI-MDS 2.0 QIs were included.ResultsThe studies fell into two broad categories, those that examined individual quality indicators and those that examined multiple indicators. All studies were conducted in the United States and included from one to a total of 209 facilities. The number of residents included in the studies ranged from 109 to 5758. One study conducted under research conditions examined 38 chronic care QIs, of which strong evidence for the validity of 12 of the QIs was found. In response to these findings, the 12 QIs were recommended for public reporting purposes. However, a number of observational studies (n = 13), conducted in "real world" conditions, have tested the validity and/or reliability of individual QIs, with mixed results. Ten QIs have been studied in this manner, including falls, depression, depression without treatment, urinary incontinence, urinary tract infections, weight loss, bedfast, restraint, pressure ulcer, and pain. These studies have revealed the potential for systematic bias in reporting, with under-reporting of some indicators and over-reporting of others.ConclusionEvidence for the reliability and validity of the RAI-MDS QIs remains inconclusive. The QIs provide a useful tool for quality monitoring and to inform quality improvement programs and initiatives. However, caution should be exercised when interpreting the QI results and other sources of evidence of the quality of care processes should be considered in conjunction with QI results.

Project description:BackgroundThe systematic review of economic evaluations plays a critical role in making well-informed decisions about competing healthcare interventions. The quality of these systematic reviews varies due to the lack of internationally recognized methodological evaluation standards.MethodsNine English and Chinese databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase (Ovid), NHS economic evaluation database (NHSEED) (Ovid), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WangFang, VIP Chinese Science & Technology Periodicals (VIP) and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) were searched. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. The methodological quality of the literature was measured with modified AMSTAR. Data were narrative synthesized.Results165 systematic reviews were included. The overall methodological quality of the literature was moderate according to the AMSTAR scale. In these articles, thirteen quality assessment tools and 32 author self-defined criteria were used. The three most widely used tools were the Drummond checklist (19.4%), the BMJ checklist (15.8%), the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement (12.7%). Others included the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES), the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC), the checklist of Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), the Philips checklist, the World Health Organization (WHO) checklist, the checklist of Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP), the Pediatric Quality Appraisal Questionnaire (PQAQ), the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist, Spanish and Chinese guidelines. The quantitative scales used in these literature were the QHES and PQAQ.ConclusionsEvidence showed that pharmacoeconomic systematic reviews' methodology remained to be improved, and the quality assessment criteria were gradually unified. Multiple scales can be used in combination to evaluate the quality of economic research in different settings and types.

Project description:Background Medical specialty certification exams are high-stakes summative assessments used to determine which doctors have the necessary skills, knowledge, and attitudes to treat patients independently. Such exams are crucial for patient safety, candidates’ career progression and accountability to the public, yet vary significantly among medical specialties and countries. It is therefore of paramount importance that the quality of specialty certification exams is studied in the scientific literature. Methods In this systematic literature review we used the PICOS framework and searched for papers concerning medical specialty certification exams published in English between 2000 and 2020 in seven databases using a diverse set of search term variations. Papers were screened by two researchers independently and scored regarding their methodological quality and relevance to this review. Finally, they were categorized by country, medical specialty and the following seven Ottawa Criteria of good assessment: validity, reliability, equivalence, feasibility, acceptability, catalytic and educational effect. Results After removal of duplicates, 2852 papers were screened for inclusion, of which 66 met all relevant criteria. Over 43 different exams and more than 28 different specialties from 18 jurisdictions were studied. Around 77% of all eligible papers were based in English-speaking countries, with 55% of publications centered on just the UK and USA. General Practice was the most frequently studied specialty among certification exams with the UK General Practice exam having been particularly broadly analyzed. Papers received an average of 4.2/6 points on the quality score. Eligible studies analyzed 2.1/7 Ottawa Criteria on average, with the most frequently studied criteria being reliability, validity, and acceptability. Conclusions The present systematic review shows a growing number of studies analyzing medical specialty certification exams over time, encompassing a wider range of medical specialties, countries, and Ottawa Criteria. Due to their reliance on multiple assessment methods and data-points, aspects of programmatic assessment suggest a promising way forward in the development of medical specialty certification exams which fulfill all seven Ottawa Criteria. Further research is needed to confirm these results, particularly analyses of examinations held outside the Anglosphere as well as studies analyzing entire certification exams or comparing multiple examination methods. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-023-04600-x.