Measuring What Matters for Children: A Systematic Review of Frequently Used Pediatric Generic PRO Instruments.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To provide an assessment of the quality of the most frequently used self-reported, generic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in children against the good research practices recommended by ISPOR task force for the pediatric population.Method
Literature search was conducted on OvidSP database to identify the generic pediatric PROMs used in published clinical studies. The quality of PROMs used in more than ten clinical studies were descriptively evaluated against the ISPOR task force's good research practices.Results
Six PROMs were evaluated, namely Pediatric Quality-of-Life inventory 4.0 (PedsQL), Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ), KIDSCREEN, KINDL, DISABKIDS and Child Health and Illness Profile (CHIP). All PROMs, except KIDSCREEN, had versions for different age ranges. Domains of physical, social, emotional health and school activities were common across all the instruments, while domains of family activities, parent relations, independence, and self-esteem were not present in all. Children's input was sought during the development process of PROMs. Likert scales were used in all the instruments, supplemented with faces (smileys) in instruments for children under 8 years. KIDSCREEN and DISABKIDS were developed in a European collaboration project considering the cross-cultural impact during development.Conclusion
The comparison of the instruments highlights differences in the versions for different pediatric age groups. None of the PROMs fulfill all the good research practices recommended by the ISPOR task force. Further research is needed to define which age-appropriate domains are important for older children and adolescents.
SUBMITTER: Arsiwala T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8332594 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundHealth impairments can result in disability and changed work productivity imposing considerable costs for the employee, employer and society as a whole. A large number of instruments exist to measure health-related productivity changes; however their methodological quality remains unclear. This systematic review critically appraised the measurement properties in generic self-reported instruments that measure health-related productivity changes to recommend appropriate instruments for use in occupational and economic health practice.MethodsPubMed, PsycINFO, Econlit and Embase were systematically searched for studies whereof: (i) instruments measured health-related productivity changes; (ii) the aim was to evaluate instrument measurement properties; (iii) instruments were generic; (iv) ratings were self-reported; (v) full-texts were available. Next, methodological quality appraisal was based on COSMIN elements: (i) internal consistency; (ii) reliability; (iii) measurement error; (iv) content validity; (v) structural validity; (vi) hypotheses testing; (vii) cross-cultural validity; (viii) criterion validity; and (ix) responsiveness. Recommendations are based on evidence syntheses.ResultsThis review included 25 articles assessing the reliability, validity and responsiveness of 15 different generic self-reported instruments measuring health-related productivity changes. Most studies evaluated criterion validity, none evaluated cross-cultural validity and information on measurement error is lacking. The Work Limitation Questionnaire (WLQ) was most frequently evaluated with moderate respectively strong positive evidence for content and structural validity and negative evidence for reliability, hypothesis testing and responsiveness. Less frequently evaluated, the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS) showed strong positive evidence for internal consistency and structural validity, and moderate positive evidence for hypotheses testing and criterion validity. The Productivity and Disease Questionnaire (PRODISQ) yielded strong positive evidence for content validity, evidence for other properties is lacking. The other instruments resulted in mostly fair-to-poor quality ratings with limited evidence.ConclusionsDecisions based on the content of the instrument, usage purpose, target country and population, and available evidence are recommended. Until high-quality studies are in place to accurately assess the measurement properties of the currently available instruments, the WLQ and, in a Dutch context, the PRODISQ are cautiously preferred based on its strong positive evidence for content validity. Based on its strong positive evidence for internal consistency and structural validity, the SPS is cautiously recommended.
| S-EPMC3942271 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth literacy is an important health promotion concern and recently children and adolescents have been the focus of increased academic attention. To assess the health literacy of this population, researchers have been focussing on developing instruments to measure their health literacy. Compared to the wider availability of instruments for adults, only a few tools are known for younger age groups. The objective of this study is to systematically review the field of generic child and adolescent health literacy measurement instruments that are currently available.MethodA systematic literature search was undertaken in five databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsycNET, ERIC, and FIS) on articles published between January 1990 and July 2015, addressing children and adolescents ≤18 years old. Eligible articles were analysed, data was extracted, and synthesised according to review objectives.ResultsFifteen generic health literacy measurement instruments for children and adolescents were identified. All, except two, are self-administered instruments. Seven are objective measures (performance-based tests), seven are subjective measures (self-reporting), and one uses a mixed-method measurement. Most instruments applied a broad and multidimensional understanding of health literacy. The instruments were developed in eight different countries, with most tools originating in the United States (n = 6). Among the instruments, 31 different components related to health literacy were identified. Accordingly, the studies exhibit a variety of implicit or explicit conceptual and operational definitions, and most instruments have been used in schools and other educational contexts. While the youngest age group studied was 7-year-old children within a parent-child study, there is only one instrument specifically designed for primary school children and none for early years.ConclusionsDespite the reported paucity of health literacy research involving children and adolescents, an unexpected number of health literacy measurement studies in children's populations was found. Most instruments tend to measure their own specific understanding of health literacy and not all provide sufficient conceptual information. To advance health literacy instruments, a much more standardised approach is necessary including improved reporting on the development and validation processes. Further research is required to improve health literacy instruments for children and adolescents and to provide knowledge to inform effective interventions.
| S-EPMC5778701 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Improving health literacy at an early age is crucial to personal health and development. Although health literacy in children and adolescents has gained momentum in the past decade, it remains an under-researched area, particularly health literacy measurement. This study aimed to examine the quality of health literacy instruments used in children and adolescents and to identify the best instrument for field use. DESIGN:Systematic review. SETTING:A wide range of settings including schools, clinics and communities. PARTICIPANTS:Children and/or adolescents aged 6-24 years. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Measurement properties (reliability, validity and responsiveness) and other important characteristics (eg, health topics, components or scoring systems) of health literacy instruments. RESULTS:There were 29 health literacy instruments identified from the screening process. When measuring health literacy in children and adolescents, researchers mainly focus on the functional domain (basic skills in reading and writing) and consider participant characteristics of developmental change (of cognitive ability), dependency (on parents) and demographic patterns (eg, racial/ethnic backgrounds), less on differential epidemiology (of health and illness). The methodological quality of included studies as assessed via measurement properties varied from poor to excellent. More than half (62.9%) of measurement properties were unknown, due to either poor methodological quality of included studies or a lack of reporting or assessment. The 8-item Health Literacy Assessment Tool (HLAT-8) showed best evidence on construct validity, and the Health Literacy Measure for Adolescents showed best evidence on reliability. CONCLUSIONS:More rigorous and high-quality studies are needed to fill the knowledge gap in measurement properties of health literacy instruments. Although it is challenging to draw a robust conclusion about which instrument is the most reliable and the most valid, this review provides important evidence that supports the use of the HLAT-8 to measure childhood and adolescent health literacy in future school-based research.
| S-EPMC6009458 | biostudies-other
Project description:Children and young adults (CYAs) with chronic conditions need to engage in self-care to improve their quality of life. This study aimed to retrieve the literature on instruments to assess self-care in CYAs living with chronic conditions and evaluate the psychometric proprieties of the instruments retrieved. A systematic literature review was conducted on six databases to identify peer-reviewed papers that described or used an evaluation instrument of self-care in CYAs with chronic conditions. Twenty-three articles describing 11 instruments of self-care were identified. Five instruments (45.45%) were developed for specific diseases, while six (54.54%) for various chronic illnesses. Most of the instruments were focused on treatment adherence within self-care maintenance (i.e., behaviors to maintain illness stability), excluding the monitoring of clinical parameters or the management of exacerbations. This review provides an overview of available instruments that measure self-care in CYAs with chronic conditions, which health professionals could use for patient education.
| S-EPMC8995847 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThere are multiple instruments for measuring multimorbidity. The main objective of this systematic review was to provide a list of instruments that are suitable for use in studies aiming to measure the association of a specific outcome with different levels of multimorbidity as the main independent variable in community-dwelling individuals. The secondary objective was to provide details of the requirements, strengths and limitations of these instruments, and the chosen outcomes.MethodsWe conducted the review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018105297). We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL electronic databases published in English and manually searched the Journal of Comorbidity between 1 January 2010 and 23 October 2020 inclusive. Studies also had to select adult patients from primary care or general population and had at least one specified outcome variable. Two authors screened the titles, abstracts and full texts independently. Disagreements were resolved with a third author. The modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment.ResultsNinety-six studies were identified, with 69 of them rated to have a low risk of bias. In total, 33 unique instruments were described. Disease Count and weighted indices like Charlson Comorbidity Index were commonly used. Other approaches included pharmaceutical-based instruments. Disease Count was the common instrument used for measuring all three essential core outcomes of multimorbidity research: mortality, mental health and quality of life. There was a rise in the development of novel weighted indices by using prognostic models. The data obtained for measuring multimorbidity were from sources including medical records, patient self-reports and large administrative databases.ConclusionsWe listed the details of 33 instruments for measuring the level of multimorbidity as a resource for investigators interested in the measurement of multimorbidity for its association with or prediction of a specific outcome.
| S-EPMC8103380 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe aim of this systematic review was to identify generic instruments for drug discontinuation in patients with polypharmacy in the primary care setting.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE, 8 guideline databases (AWMF, NICE, NGC, SIGN, NHMRC, CPG, KCE), the Cochrane Library and grey literature (Google) in 2016 and 2017. Two independent researchers screened and analysed data. The drug discontinuation instruments of the included publications were described and classified.ResultsWe identified 16 relevant publications. Here we found complex algorithms as well as instruments composed of distinct sequential steps. Two guidelines are constructed as electronic web-applications. Instruments revealed diverging emphases on the stages of deprescribing, i.e. preparation, drug evaluation, decision-making and implementation. Accordingly, 3 types of instruments emerged: general frameworks, detailed drug assessment tools and comprehensive discontinuation guidelines.ConclusionDiverse generic instruments exist for different areas of applications in regard to drug discontinuation. However, there is still a need for practical and user-friendly tools that support physicians in communicational aspects, visualise trade-offs and also enhance patient involvement.
| S-EPMC7319012 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionNumerous instruments have been developed to assess spirituality and measure its association with health outcomes. This study's aims were to identify instruments used in clinical research that measure spirituality; to propose a classification of these instruments; and to identify those instruments that could provide information on the need for spiritual intervention.MethodsA systematic literature search in MEDLINE, CINHAL, PsycINFO, ATLA, and EMBASE databases, using the terms "spirituality" and "adult$," and limited to journal articles was performed to identify clinical studies that used a spiritual assessment instrument. For each instrument identified, measured constructs, intended goals, and data on psychometric properties were retrieved. A conceptual and a functional classification of instruments were developed.ResultsThirty-five instruments were retrieved and classified into measures of general spirituality (N = 22), spiritual well-being (N = 5), spiritual coping (N = 4), and spiritual needs (N = 4) according to the conceptual classification. Instruments most frequently used in clinical research were the FACIT-Sp and the Spiritual Well-Being Scale. Data on psychometric properties were mostly limited to content validity and inter-item reliability. According to the functional classification, 16 instruments were identified that included at least one item measuring a current spiritual state, but only three of those appeared suitable to address the need for spiritual intervention.ConclusionsInstruments identified in this systematic review assess multiple dimensions of spirituality, and the proposed classifications should help clinical researchers interested in investigating the complex relationship between spirituality and health. Findings underscore the scarcity of instruments specifically designed to measure a patient's current spiritual state. Moreover, the relatively limited data available on psychometric properties of these instruments highlight the need for additional research to determine whether they are suitable in identifying the need for spiritual interventions.
| S-EPMC3208480 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Blunted affect, also referred to as emotional blunting, is a prominent symptom of schizophrenia. Patients with blunted affect have difficulty in expressing their emotions. The work of Abrams and Taylor and their development of the Rating Scale for Emotional Blunting in the late 1970's was an early indicator that blunted affect could indeed be assessed reliably. Since then, several new instruments assessing negative symptoms with subscales measuring blunted affect have been developed. In light of this, we aim to provide researchers and clinicians with a systematic review of the different instruments used to assess blunted affect by providing a comparison of the type, characteristics, administration and psychometric properties of these instruments. Studies reporting on the psychometric properties of instruments assessing blunted affect in patients with schizophrenia were included. Reviews and case studies were excluded. We reviewed 30 full-text articles and included 15 articles and 10 instruments in this systematic review. On average the instruments take 15-30 minutes to administer. We found that blunted affect items common across all instruments assess: gestures, facial expressions and vocal expressions. The CAINS Self-report Expression Subscale, had a low internal consistency score. This suggests that this sub-scale does not reliably assess patients' self-reported blunted affect symptoms and is likely due to the nature of blunted affect. Instruments correlated minimally with instruments measuring positive symptoms and more importantly with depression suggesting that the instruments distinguish between seemingly similar symptoms.
| S-EPMC4452733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), Mood & Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire -30 (MASQ-D30), Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36), and Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Short Form (DAPP-SF) are generic instruments that can be used in Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) of patients with common mental disorders. We aimed to generate reference values usually encountered in 'healthy' and 'psychiatrically ill' populations to facilitate correct interpretation of ROM results.MethodsWe included the following specific reference populations: 1294 subjects from the general population (ROM reference group) recruited through general practitioners, and 5269 psychiatric outpatients diagnosed with mood, anxiety, or somatoform (MAS) disorders (ROM patient group). The outermost 5% of observations were used to define limits for one-sided reference intervals (95th percentiles for BSI, MASQ-D30 and DAPP-SF, and 5th percentiles for SF-36 subscales). Internal consistency and Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analyses were performed.ResultsMean age for the ROM reference group was 40.3 years (SD=12.6) and 37.7 years (SD=12.0) for the ROM patient group. The proportion of females was 62.8% and 64.6%, respectively. The mean for cut-off values of healthy individuals was 0.82 for the BSI subscales, 23 for the three MASQ-D30 subscales, 45 for the SF-36 subscales, and 3.1 for the DAPP-SF subscales. Discriminative power of the BSI, MASQ-D30 and SF-36 was good, but it was poor for the DAPP-SF. For all instruments, the internal consistency of the subscales ranged from adequate to excellent.Discussion and conclusionReference values for the clinical interpretation were provided for the BSI, MASQ-D30, SF-36, and DAPP-SF. Clinical information aided by ROM data may represent the best means to appraise the clinical state of psychiatric outpatients.
| S-EPMC3551660 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAccurate values are a must in medicine. An important parameter in determining the quality of a medical instrument is agreement with a gold standard. Various statistical methods have been used to test for agreement. Some of these methods have been shown to be inappropriate. This can result in misleading conclusions about the validity of an instrument. The Bland-Altman method is the most popular method judging by the many citations of the article proposing this method. However, the number of citations does not necessarily mean that this method has been applied in agreement research. No previous study has been conducted to look into this. This is the first systematic review to identify statistical methods used to test for agreement of medical instruments. The proportion of various statistical methods found in this review will also reflect the proportion of medical instruments that have been validated using those particular methods in current clinical practice.Methodology/findingsFive electronic databases were searched between 2007 and 2009 to look for agreement studies. A total of 3,260 titles were initially identified. Only 412 titles were potentially related, and finally 210 fitted the inclusion criteria. The Bland-Altman method is the most popular method with 178 (85%) studies having used this method, followed by the correlation coefficient (27%) and means comparison (18%). Some of the inappropriate methods highlighted by Altman and Bland since the 1980s are still in use.ConclusionsThis study finds that the Bland-Altman method is the most popular method used in agreement research. There are still inappropriate applications of statistical methods in some studies. It is important for a clinician or medical researcher to be aware of this issue because misleading conclusions from inappropriate analyses will jeopardize the quality of the evidence, which in turn will influence quality of care given to patients in the future.
| S-EPMC3360667 | biostudies-literature