Dataset Information

Tele-neuropsychological assessment tools in Italy: a systematic review on psychometric properties and usability

ABSTRACT:

Background

The current COVID-19 pandemic has abruptly catalysed a shift towards remote assessment in neuropsychological practice (tele-neuropsychology, t-NPs). Although the validity of t-NPs diagnostics is gaining recognition worldwide, little is known about its implementation in Italy. The present review by the Italian working group on tele-neuropsychology (TELA) aims at describing the availability, psychometric properties, and feasibility of t-NPs tools currently available in Italy.

Methods

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. This work was pre-registered on the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42021239687). Observational studies reporting telephone-, videoconference- or web-based assessment of cognition/behaviour in Italian both healthy participants (HPs) and patients were included. Bias assessment was performed through ad hoc scales.

Results

Fourteen studies were included from an initial N = 895 (4 databases searched). Studies were subdivided into those focused on psychometric properties and those characterized by a predominant applied nature. The majority of studies addressed either adult/elderly HPs or neurological/internal patients. Multi-domain screening tools for cognition, behaviour, mood/anxiety and quality of life were the most represented. Findings regarding validity, reliability, sensitivity, specificity and clinical usability were reported for cognitive screenings — the telephone- and videoconference-based Mini-Mental State Examination and the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status.

Discussion

Positive albeit preliminary evidence regarding psychometric properties and feasibility in both clinical and non-clinical populations of Italian t-NPs brief screening tools are herewith provided. Further studies exploring clinical usability of t-NPs and psychometric properties/feasibility of tests for the in-depth assessment of specific cognitive domains are necessary.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10072-021-05719-9.

SUBMITTER: Zanin E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8576086 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveGross motor assessment tools have a critical role in identifying, diagnosing and evaluating motor difficulties in childhood. The objective of this review was to systematically evaluate the psychometric properties and clinical utility of gross motor assessment tools for children aged 2-12 years.MethodA systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED was performed between May and July 2017. Methodological quality was assessed with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments checklist and an outcome measures rating form was used to evaluate reliability, validity and clinical utility of assessment tools.ResultsSeven assessment tools from 37 studies/manuals met the inclusion criteria: Bayley Scale of Infant and Toddler Development-III (Bayley-III), Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-2 (BOT-2), Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (MABC-2), McCarron Assessment of Neuromuscular Development (MAND), Neurological Sensory Motor Developmental Assessment (NSMDA), Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 (PDMS-2) and Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2). Methodological quality varied from poor to excellent. Validity and internal consistency varied from fair to excellent (?=0.5-0.99). The Bayley-III, NSMDA and MABC-2 have evidence of predictive validity. Test-retest reliability is excellent in the BOT-2 (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.80-0.99), PDMS-2 (ICC=0.97), MABC-2 (ICC=0.83-0.96) and TGMD-2 (ICC=0.81-0.92). TGMD-2 has the highest inter-rater (ICC=0.88-0.93) and intrarater reliability (ICC=0.92-0.99).ConclusionsThe majority of gross motor assessments for children have good-excellent validity. Test-retest reliability is highest in the BOT-2, MABC-2, PDMS-2 and TGMD-2. The Bayley-III has the best predictive validity at 2 years of age for later motor outcome. None of the assessment tools demonstrate good evaluative validity. Further research on evaluative gross motor assessment tools are urgently needed.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough a wide range of needs assessment tools for cancer patients have been developed, no standardized and commonly accepted instruments were recommended to use in clinical care. This systematic review was conducted to assess the quality of psychometric properties of needs assessment tools among cancer patients in order to help oncology healthcare professionals select the most appropriate needs assessment tools in routine clinical practice.MethodsSearches were conducted in the electronic databases of PUBMED from 1966, CINAHL from 1960, EMBASE from 1980 and PsychINFO from 1967 as well as additional sources. The quality of psychometric properties of the recruited needs assessment tools was evaluated using the agreed quality criteria for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.ResultsThirty-seven studies which evaluated the psychometric properties of 20 needs assessment tools were identified. Internal consistency was tested in 32 studies with 9 studies indicating negative rating and 4 studies intermediate rating. Less than half of the studies (13 studies) assessed test-retest reliability, and only 4 studies reported positive rating. Content validity was the most tested psychometric property appraised in 33 studies and indicated positive rating in all the evaluated studies. Structural validity was adequately evaluated in 28 studies with 23 studies reporting intermediate rating. More than half of the studies (29 studies) tested hypothesis testing and 13 studies were rated positive. Cross-cultural validity results were obtained in 13 studies with 7 studies showing negative rating. No data was available on measurement error and criterion validity. Only one study appraised responsiveness and showed intermediate rating. The Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form (SCNS-SF) is the most widely used instrument for needs assessment in cancer patients. It had strong evidence for internal consistency, content validity, structural validity and hypothesis testing, and moderate evidence for reliability and cross-cultural validity. Cancer Survivors' Unmet Needs Measure (CaSUN) reported strong or moderate evidence for internal consistency, reliability, content and structural validity, and hypothesis testing. Furthermore, Supportive Cancer Care Needs Assessment Tool for Indigenous People (SCNAT-IP) had strong evidence for content validity, and moderate evidence for internal consistency, structural validity and hypothesis testing.ConclusionsDespite several needs assessment tools exist to assess care needs in cancer patients, further improvement of already existing and promising instruments is recommended.

Project description:IntroductionMeasuring the quality of care at the end of life and/or the quality of dying and death can be challenging. Some measurement tools seek to assess the quality of care immediately prior to death; others retrospectively assess, following death, the quality of end-of-life care. The comparative evaluation of the properties and application of the various instruments has been limited.ObjectiveThis systematic review identified and critically appraised the psychometric properties and applicability of tools used after death.MethodWe conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by systematically searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for relevant studies. We then appraised the psychometric properties and the quality of reporting of the psychometric properties of the identified tools using the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) checklist. The protocol of this systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016047296).ResultsThe search identified 4751 studies. Of these, 33 met the inclusion criteria, reporting on the psychometric properties of 67 tools. These tools measured quality of care at the end of life (n = 35), quality of dying and death (n = 22), or both quality of care at the end of life and dying and death (n = 10). Most tools were completed by family carers (n = 57), with some also completed by healthcare professionals (HCPs) (n = 2) or just HCPs (n = 8). No single tool was found to be adequate across all the psychometric properties assessed. Two quality of care at the end of life tools-Care of the Dying Evaluation and Satisfaction with Care at the End of Life in Dementia-had strong psychometric properties in most respects. Two tools assessing quality of dying and death-the Quality of Dying and Death and the newly developed Staff Perception of End of Life Experience-had limited to moderate evidence of good psychometric properties. Two tools assessing both quality of care and quality of dying and death-the Quality Of Dying in Long-Term Care for cognitively intact populations and Good Death Inventory (Korean version)-had the best psychometric properties.ConclusionFour tools demonstrated some promise, but no single tool was consistent across all psychometric properties assessed. All tools identified would benefit from further psychometric testing.