Dataset Information

Measuring a caring culture in hospitals: a systematic review of instruments.

ABSTRACT: To identify instruments or components of instruments that aim to measure aspects of a caring culture-shared beliefs, norms and values that direct professionals and managers to act caring in hospitals, and to evaluate their psychometric properties.Systematic review.PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychInfo, Web of Science and the International bibliography of the Social Sciences.Peer-reviewed articles describing (components of) instruments measuring aspects of a caring culture in a hospital setting. Studies had to report psychometric data regarding the reliability or validity of the instrument. Potentially useful instruments that were identified after the title and abstract scan were assessed on relevance by an expert panel (n=12) using the RAND-modified Delphi procedure.Of the 6399 references identified, 75 were examined in detail. 7 studies each covering a unique instrument met our inclusion criteria. On average, 24% of the instrument's items were considered relevant for measuring aspects of the hospital's caring culture. Studies showed moderate-to-high validity and reliability scores. Validity was addressed for 6 of the 7 instruments. Face, content (90%) and construct (60%) validity were the most frequently reported psychometric properties described. One study (14%) reported discriminant validity of the instrument. Reliability data were available for all of the instruments. Internal consistency was the most frequently reported psychometric property for the instruments and demonstrated by: a Cronbach's ? coefficient (80%), subscale intercorrelations (60%), and item-total correlations (40%).The ultimate standard for measuring a caring culture in hospitals does not exist. Existing instruments provide partial coverage and lack information on discriminant validity, responsiveness and feasibility. Characteristics of the instruments included in this review could provide useful input for the design of a reliable and valid instrument for measuring a caring culture in hospitals.

SUBMITTER: Hesselink G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3787470 | biostudies-other | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Measuring a caring culture in hospitals: a systematic review of instruments.

Hesselink G G Kuis E E Pijnenburg M M Wollersheim H H

BMJ open 20130923 9

<h4>Objective</h4>To identify instruments or components of instruments that aim to measure aspects of a caring culture-shared beliefs, norms and values that direct professionals and managers to act caring in hospitals, and to evaluate their psychometric properties.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review.<h4>Data sources</h4>PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychInfo, Web of Science and the International bibliography of the Social Sciences.<h4>Study selection</h4>Peer-reviewed articles describing (components of) ...[more]

PMID: 24065697

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:Policy Points: Investigations on systematic methodologies for measuring integrated care should coincide with the growing interest in this field of research. A systematic review of instruments provides insights into integrated care measurement, including setting the research agenda for validating available instruments and informing the decision to develop new ones. This study is the first systematic review of instruments measuring integrated care with an evidence synthesis of the measurement properties. We found 209 index instruments measuring different constructs related to integrated care; the strength of evidence on the adequacy of the majority of their measurement properties remained largely unassessed.Integrated care is an important strategy for increasing health system performance. Despite its growing significance, detailed evidence on the measurement properties of integrated care instruments remains vague and limited. Our systematic review aims to provide evidence on the state of the art in measuring integrated care.Our comprehensive systematic review framework builds on the Rainbow Model for Integrated Care (RMIC). We searched MEDLINE/PubMed for published articles on the measurement properties of instruments measuring integrated care and identified eligible articles using a standard set of selection criteria. We assessed the methodological quality of every validation study reported using the COSMIN checklist and extracted data on study and instrument characteristics. We also evaluated the measurement properties of each examined instrument per validation study and provided a best evidence synthesis on the adequacy of measurement properties of the index instruments.From the 300 eligible articles, we assessed the methodological quality of 379 validation studies from which we identified 209 index instruments measuring integrated care constructs. The majority of studies reported on instruments measuring constructs related to care integration (33%) and patient-centered care (49%); fewer studies measured care continuity/comprehensive care (15%) and care coordination/case management (3%). We mapped 84% of the measured constructs to the clinical integration domain of the RMIC, with fewer constructs related to the domains of professional (3.7%), organizational (3.4%), and functional (0.5%) integration. Only 8% of the instruments were mapped to a combination of domains; none were mapped exclusively to the system or normative integration domains. The majority of instruments were administered to either patients (60%) or health care providers (20%). Of the measurement properties, responsiveness (4%), measurement error (7%), and criterion (12%) and cross-cultural validity (14%) were less commonly reported. We found <50% of the validation studies to be of good or excellent quality for any of the measurement properties. Only a minority of index instruments showed strong evidence of positive findings for internal consistency (15%), content validity (19%), and structural validity (7%); with moderate evidence of positive findings for internal consistency (14%) and construct validity (14%).Our results suggest that the quality of measurement properties of instruments measuring integrated care is in need of improvement with the less-studied constructs and domains to become part of newly developed instruments.

Project description:During the last decade, there has been a rapid increase in development of instruments to measure parent food practices. Because these instruments often measure different constructs, or define common constructs differently, an evaluation of these instruments is needed. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify existing measures of parent food practices and to assess the quality of their development. The initial search used terms capturing home environment, parenting behaviors, feeding practices and eating behaviors, and was performed in October of 2009 using PubMed/Medline, PsychInfo, Web of knowledge (ISI), and ERIC, and updated in July of 2012. A review of titles and abstracts was used to narrow results, after which full articles were retrieved and reviewed. Only articles describing development of measures of parenting food practices designed for families with children 2-12 years old were retained for the current review. For each article, two reviewers extracted data and appraised the quality of processes used for instrument development and evaluation. The initial search yielded 28,378 unique titles; review of titles and abstracts narrowed the pool to 1,352 articles; from which 57 unique instruments were identified. The review update yielded 1,772 new titles from which14 additional instruments were identified. The extraction and appraisal process found that 49% of instruments clearly identified and defined concepts to be measured, and 46% used theory to guide instrument development. Most instruments (80%) had some reliability testing, with internal consistency being the most common (79%). Test-retest or inter-rater reliability was reported for less than half the instruments. Some form of validity evidence was reported for 84% of instruments. Construct validity was most commonly presented (86%), usually with analysis of associations with child diet or weight/BMI. While many measures of food parenting practices have emerged, particularly in recent years, few have demonstrated solid development methods. Substantial variation in items across different scales/constructs makes comparison between instruments extremely difficult. Future efforts should be directed toward consensus development of food parenting practices constructs and measures.

Project description:BackgroundModification is an important process by which to adapt an instrument to be used for another culture. However, it is not fully understood how best to modify an instrument to be used appropriately in another culture.ObjectiveThis study aims to synthesize the modification strategies used in the cross-cultural adaptation process for instruments measuring health beliefs about cancer screening.MethodsA systematic review design was used for conducting this study. Keywords including constructs about instrument modification, health belief, and cancer screening were searched in the PubMed, Google Scholar, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases. Bowling's checklist was used to evaluate methodological rigor of the included articles. Results were reported using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) approach with a narrative method.ResultsA total of 1312 articles were initially identified in the databases. After removing duplications and assessing titles, abstracts, and texts of the articles, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria for the study. Based on Flaherty's cultural equivalence model, strategies used in the modification process included rephrasing items and response options to achieve semantic equivalence; changing subjects of items, changing wording of items, adding items, and deleting items to achieve content equivalence; adding subscales and items and deleting subscales and items to achieve criterion equivalence. Solutions used to resolve disagreements in the modification process included consultation with experts or literature search, following the majority, and consultation with the author who developed the scales.ConclusionsThis study provides guidance for researchers who want to modify an instrument to be used in another culture. It can potentially give cross-cultural researchers insight into modification strategies and a better understanding of the modification process in cross-cultural instrument adaptation. More research could be done to help researchers better modify cross-cultural instruments to achieve cultural equivalence.

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.

Dataset Information

Measuring a caring culture in hospitals: a systematic review of instruments.

Publications

Measuring a caring culture in hospitals: a systematic review of instruments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets