Dataset Information

Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Maternal Postpartum Depression Using the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments Guideline: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Maternal depression is frequently reported in the postpartum period, with an estimated prevalence of approximately 15% during the first postpartum year. Despite the high prevalence of postpartum depression, there is no consensus regarding which patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) should be used to screen for this complex, multidimensional construct.

Objective

To evaluate psychometric measurement properties of existing PROMs of maternal postpartum depression using the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline and identify the best available patient-reported screening measure.

Evidence review

This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science were searched on July 1, 2019, for validated PROMs of postpartum depression, and an additional search including a hand search of references from eligible studies was conducted in June 2021. Included studies evaluated 1 or more psychometric measurement properties of the identified PROMs. A risk-of-bias assessment was performed to evaluate methods of each included study. Psychometric measurement properties of each PROM were rated according to COSMIN criteria. A modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess the level of evidence supporting each rating, and a recommendation class (A, recommended for use; B, further research required; or C, not recommended) was given based on the overall quality of each included PROM.

Findings

Among 10 264 postpartum recovery studies, 27 PROMs were identified. Ten PROMs (37.0%) met the inclusion criteria and were used in 43 studies (0.4%) involving 22 095 postpartum women. At least 1 psychometric measurement property was assessed for each of the 10 validated PROMs identified. Content validity was sufficient in all PROMs. The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) demonstrated adequate content validity and a moderate level of evidence for sufficient internal consistency (with sufficient structural validity), resulting in a recommendation of class A. The other 9 PROMs evaluated received a recommendation of class B.

Conclusions and relevance

The findings of this systematic review suggest that the EPDS is the best available patient-reported screening measure of maternal postpartum depression. Future studies should focus on evaluating the cross-cultural validity, reliability, and measurement error of the EPDS to improve understanding of its psychometric properties and utility.

SUBMITTER: Sultan P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9233232 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important tools used to understand patient-focused outcomes from care. Various PROMs have been developed for patients with bladder cancer (BC), although the disease's heterogeneity makes selection difficult. Accurate measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQL) can only be achieved if the PROM chosen is 'fit for purpose' (i.e. psychometrically sound). Systematic reviews of psychometric properties are useful for selecting the best PROM for a specific purpose. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) developed a checklist to improve the selection of health measurement instruments as part of a review process. Our aims were to undertake a systematic review, using the COSMIN criteria, to assess the quality of studies that report the psychometric properties of PROMs used with people with BC and determine the psychometric quality of these PROMs. An electronic search of seven databases including PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE (PROSPERO reference CRD42016051974) was undertaken to identify English language publications, published between January 1990 and September 2017 that evaluated psychometric properties of PROMs used in BC research. Two researchers independently screened abstracts and selected full-text papers. Studies were rated on methodological quality using the COSMIN checklist. Overall, 4663 records were screened and 23 studies, reporting outcomes in 3568 patients, were evaluated using the COSMIN checklist. Most PROMs had limited information reported about their psychometric properties. Studies reporting on the Bladder Cancer Index (BCI) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Vanderbilt Cystectomy Index (FACT-VCI) provided the most detail and these PROMs could be evaluated on the most COSMIN properties. Based on the available evidence, no existing PROM stands out as the most appropriate to measure HRQL in BC populations. This is due to two factors; (i) the heterogeneity of BC and its treatments (ii) no PROM was evaluated on all COSMIN measurement properties due to a lack of validation studies. We suggest future evaluation of generic, cancer generic and BC-specific PROMs to better understand their application with BC populations and propose strategies to help clinicians and researchers.

Project description:BackgroundThe Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) aims to promote high quality clinical guideline development and implementation. Guideline-based performance measures are a key implementation tool and are widely used internationally for quality improvement, quality assurance, and pay for performance in health care. There is, however, no international consensus on best methods for guideline-based performance measures. In order to address this issue, the G-I-N Performance Measures Working Group aimed to develop a set of consensus-based reporting standards for guideline-based performance measure development and re-evaluation.MethodsMethodology publications on guideline-based performance measures were identified from a systematic literature review and analyzed. Core criteria for the development and evaluation process of guideline-based performance measures were determined and refined into draft standards with an associated rationale and description of the evidence base. In a two-round Delphi-process, the group members appraised and approved the draft standards. After the first round, the group met to discuss comments and revised the drafts accordingly.ResultsTwenty-one methodology publications were reviewed. The group reached strong consensus on nine reporting standards concerning: (1) selection of clinical guidelines, (2) extraction of clinical guideline recommendations, (3) description of the measure development process, (4) measure appraisal, (5) measure specification, (6) description of the intended use of the measure, (7) measure testing/validating, (8) measure review/re-evaluation, and (9) composition of the measure development panel.ConclusionsThese proposed international reporting standards address core components of guideline-based performance measure development and re-evaluation. They are intended to contribute to international reporting harmonization and improvement of methods for performance measures. Further research is required regarding validity, acceptability, and practicality.

Project description:Social connection is important for long-term care (LTC) residents' quality of life and care. However, there is a lack of consensus on how to measure it and this limits ability to find what improves and impairs social connection in LTC homes. We therefore aimed to systematically review and evaluate the measurement properties of existing measures of social connection for LTC residents, to identify which, if any, measures can be recommended. We searched eight electronic databases from inception to April 2022 for studies which reported on psychometric properties of a measure of any aspect(s) of social connection (including social networks, interaction, engagement, support, isolation, connectedness, and loneliness) for LTC residents. We used COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines to evaluate the measurement properties reported for each identified measure and make recommendations. We identified 62 studies reporting on 38 measures; 21 measured quality of life, well-being or life satisfaction and included a social connection subscale or standalone items and 17 measures specifically targeted social connection. We found there was little high-quality evidence on psychometric properties such as sufficient content validity (n = 0), structural validity (n = 3), internal consistency (n = 3), reliability (n = 1), measurement error (n = 0), construct validity (n = 4), criterion validity (n = 0) and responsiveness (n = 0). No measures demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties on all these aspects, so none could be recommended for use. Thirty-four measures have the potential to be recommended but require further research to assess their quality and the remaining four are not recommended for use. Our review therefore found that no existing measures have sufficient evidence to be recommended for assessment of social connection in residents of LTC homes. Further validation and reliability studies of existing instruments or the development of new measures are needed to enable accurate measurement of social connection in LTC residents for future observational and interventional studies.HighlightsSocial connection is fundamental to person-centered care in long-term care homes.There is insufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of existing measures.No current measures can be recommended for use based on existing evidence.A reliable and valid measure of social connection is needed for future research.

Project description:BackgroundStudies investigating the prevalence and risk factors for postpartum depression (PPD) have used different definitions. Some studies have used a high score on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to define PPD, whereas others have used information on antidepressant medication use and/or diagnostic information on treatment for depression at a psychiatric hospital. We wanted to compare results using these two approaches to evaluate to what degree results can be compared. Moreover we wanted to evaluate, whether use of EPDS or PPAT (defined below) leads to identification of different risk factor profiles.MethodsWe identified women who delivered a child between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2016 in Copenhagen or in one of the municipalities that were part of the Danish Health Visitors' Child Health Database. The potential risk factors were demographic factors and pregnancy- and obstetrical events. Outcomes of interest were an EPDS score ≥ 13, use of antidepressants (ATC: N06A) and/or a diagnosis of depression (F32) within six months after birth. Use of antidepressants and/or diagnosis of depression will be referred to as postpartum antidepressant treatment (PPAT). Agreement between EPDS ≥ 13 and PPAT was evaluated by the kappa coefficient. Associations between risk factors and the two outcomes (EPDS ≥ 13 and PPAT) were estimated by risk ratios (RR) using log-linear binomial regression. Presence of a systematic difference between RRs based on EPDS ≥ 13 (RREPDS≥13) and PPAT (RRPPAT) was evaluated in a meta-regression approach weighted by inverse-variance and with logarithm of the RRs as outcome.ResultsThe estimated PPD prevalence using EPDS ≥ 13 was 3.2% and of PPAT 0.4%. The agreement between the two measures was small (Kappa = 0.08), but their risk factor profile was very similar with no systematic difference between them.ConclusionsUsing the two different methods of case identification produced different prevalence estimates, but a similar risk factor profile. The differences in estimated prevalence and low agreement suggest that the two measures identify different potential PPD cases and using only one of the methods in defining PPD would underestimate PPD prevalence. The similar risk factor profile suggests that the considered risk factors are involved in the general development of PPD.

Project description:BackgroundThere are several mobile health (mHealth) apps in mobile app stores. These apps enter the business-to-customer market with limited controls. Both, apps that users use autonomously and those designed to be recommended by practitioners require an end-user validation to minimize the risk of using apps that are ineffective or harmful. Prior studies have reviewed the most relevant aspects in a tool designed for assessing mHealth app quality, and different options have been developed for this purpose. However, the psychometric properties of the mHealth quality measurement tools, that is, the validity and reliability of the tools for their purpose, also need to be studied. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) initiative has developed tools for selecting the most suitable measurement instrument for health outcomes, and one of the main fields of study was their psychometric properties.ObjectiveThis study aims to address and psychometrically analyze, following the COSMIN guideline, the quality of the tools that are used to measure the quality of mHealth apps.MethodsFrom February 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, 2 reviewers searched PubMed and Embase databases, identifying mHealth app quality measurement tools and all the validation studies associated with each of them. For inclusion, the studies had to be meant to validate a tool designed to assess mHealth apps. Studies that used these tools for the assessment of mHealth apps but did not include any psychometric validation were excluded. The measurement tools were analyzed according to the 10 psychometric properties described in the COSMIN guideline. The dimensions and items analyzed in each tool were also analyzed.ResultsThe initial search showed 3372 articles. Only 10 finally met the inclusion criteria and were chosen for analysis in this review, analyzing 8 measurement tools. Of these tools, 4 validated ≥5 psychometric properties defined in the COSMIN guideline. Although some of the tools only measure the usability dimension, other tools provide information such as engagement, esthetics, or functionality. Furthermore, 2 measurement tools, Mobile App Rating Scale and mHealth Apps Usability Questionnaire, have a user version, as well as a professional version.ConclusionsThe Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale and the Measurement Scales for Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use were the most validated tools, but they were very focused on usability. The Mobile App Rating Scale showed a moderate number of validated psychometric properties, measures a significant number of quality dimensions, and has been validated in a large number of mHealth apps, and its use is widespread. It is suggested that the continuation of the validation of this tool in other psychometric properties could provide an appropriate option for evaluating the quality of mHealth apps.

Project description:PurposeAlthough comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.MethodsThe development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.ResultsFrom the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.ConclusionPRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.