Dataset Information

Measurement properties of depression questionnaires in patients with diabetes: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: To conduct a systematic review on measurement properties of questionnaires measuring depressive symptoms in adult patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.A systematic review of the literature in MEDLINE, EMbase and PsycINFO was performed. Full text, original articles, published in any language up to October 2016 were included. Eligibility for inclusion was independently assessed by three reviewers who worked in pairs. Methodological quality of the studies was evaluated by two independent reviewers using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Quality of the questionnaires was rated per measurement property, based on the number and quality of the included studies and the reported results.Of 6286 unique hits, 21 studies met our criteria evaluating nine different questionnaires in multiple settings and languages. The methodological quality of the included studies was variable for the different measurement properties: 9/15 studies scored 'good' or 'excellent' on internal consistency, 2/5 on reliability, 0/1 on content validity, 10/10 on structural validity, 8/11 on hypothesis testing, 1/5 on cross-cultural validity, and 4/9 on criterion validity. For the CES-D, there was strong evidence for good internal consistency, structural validity, and construct validity; moderate evidence for good criterion validity; and limited evidence for good cross-cultural validity. The PHQ-9 and WHO-5 also performed well on several measurement properties. However, the evidence for structural validity of the PHQ-9 was inconclusive. The WHO-5 was less extensively researched and originally not developed to measure depression.Currently, the CES-D is best supported for measuring depressive symptoms in diabetes patients.

SUBMITTER: van Dijk SEM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5951879 | biostudies-other | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundContinuity of care is widely acknowledged as a core value in family medicine. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify the instruments measuring continuity of care and to assess the quality of their measurement properties.MethodsWe did a systematic review using the PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO databases, with an extensive search strategy including 'continuity of care', 'coordination of care', 'integration of care', 'patient centered care', 'case management' and its linguistic variations. We searched from 1995 to October 2011 and included articles describing the development and/or evaluation of the measurement properties of instruments measuring one or more dimensions of continuity of care (1) care from the same provider who knows and follows the patient (personal continuity), (2) communication and cooperation between care providers in one care setting (team continuity), and (3) communication and cooperation between care providers in different care settings (cross-boundary continuity). We assessed the methodological quality of the measurement properties of each instrument using the COSMIN checklist.ResultsWe included 24 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 21 instruments. Ten instruments measured all three dimensions of continuity of care. Instruments were developed for different groups of patients or providers. For most instruments, three or four of the six measurement properties were assessed (mostly internal consistency, content validity, structural validity and construct validity). Six instruments scored positive on the quality of at least three of six measurement properties.ConclusionsMost included instruments have problems with either the number or quality of its assessed measurement properties or the ability to measure all three dimensions of continuity of care. Based on the results of this review, we recommend the use of one of the four most promising instruments, depending on the target population Diabetes Continuity of Care Questionnaire, Alberta Continuity of Services Scale-Mental Health, Heart Continuity of Care Questionnaire, and Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire.

Project description:BackgroundIn order to assess physical activity (PA) during pregnancy, it is important to choose the instrument with the best measurement properties.ObjectivesTo systematically summarize, appraise, and compare the measurement properties of all self-administered questionnaires assessing PA in pregnancy.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and SPORTDiscus with the following inclusion criteria: (i) the study reported at least one measurement property (reliability, criterion validity, construct validity, responsiveness) of a self-administered questionnaire; (ii) the questionnaire intended to measure PA; (iii) the questionnaire was evaluated in healthy pregnant women; and (iv) the study was published in English. We evaluated results, quality of individual studies, and quality of evidence using a standardized checklist (Quality Assessment of Physical Activity Questionnaires [QAPAQ]) and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.ResultsSeventeen articles, reporting 18 studies of 11 different PA questionnaires (17 versions), were included. Most questionnaire versions showed insufficient measurement properties. Only the French and Turkish versions of the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ) showed both sufficient reliability and construct validity. However, all versions of the PPAQ pooled together showed insufficient construct validity. The quality of individual studies was usually high for reliability but varied considerably for construct validity. Overall, the quality of evidence was very low to moderate.ConclusionsWe recommend the PPAQ to assess PA in pregnancy, although the pooled results revealed insufficient construct validity. The lack of appropriate standards in data collection and processing criteria for objective devices in measuring PA during pregnancy attenuates the quality of evidence. Therefore, research on the validity of comparison instruments in pregnancy followed by consensus on validation reference criteria and standards of PA measurement is needed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Comorbid depression is common among patients with diabetes and has severe health consequences, but often remains unrecognized. Several questionnaires are used to screen for depression. A systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the diagnostic accuracy of depression questionnaires in adults with diabetes is unavailable. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of depression questionnaires in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. METHODS:PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 28 February 2018. Studies were included when the diagnostic accuracy of depression questionnaires was assessed in a diabetes population and the reference standard was a clinical interview. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and checked by another. Two reviewers independently conducted the quality assessment (QUADAS-2). Diagnostic accuracy was pooled in bivariate random effects models. The main outcome was diagnostic accuracy, expressed as sensitivity and specificity, of depression questionnaires in an adult diabetes population. This study is reported according to PRISMA-DTA and is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018092950). RESULTS:A total 6,097 peer-reviewed articles were screened. Twenty-one studies (N = 5,703 patients) met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Twelve different depression questionnaires were identified, of which the CES-D (n = 6 studies) and PHQ-9 (n = 7 studies) were the most frequently evaluated. Risk of bias was unclear for multiple domains in the majority of studies. In the meta-analyses, five (N = 1,228) studies of the CES-D (?16), five (N = 1,642) of the PHQ-9 (?10) and four (N = 822) of the algorithm of the PHQ-9 were included in the pooled analysis. The CES-D (?16) had a pooled sensitivity of 85.0% (95%CI, 71.3-92.8%) and a specificity of 71.6% (95%CI, 62.5-79.2%); the PHQ-9 (?10) had a sensitivity of 81.5% (95%CI, 57.1-93.5%) and a specificity of 79.7% (95%CI, 62.1-90.4%). The algorithm for the PHQ-9 had a sensitivity of 60.9% (95%CI, 52.3-90.8%) and a specificity of 64.0% (95%CI, 53.0-93.9%). CONCLUSIONS:This review indicates that the CES-D had the highest sensitivity, whereas the PHQ-9 had the highest specificity, although confidence intervals were wide and overlapping. The algorithm for the PHQ-9 had the lowest sensitivity and specificity. Given the variance in results and suboptimal reporting of studies, further high quality studies are needed to confirm the diagnostic accuracy of these depression questionnaires in patients with diabetes.

Project description:BackgroundQuestionnaires provide valuable information about physical activity (PA) behaviors in older adults. Until now, no firm recommendations for the most qualified questionnaires for older adults have been provided.ObjectivesThis review is an update of a previous systematic review, published in 2010, and aims to summarize, appraise and compare the measurement properties of all available self-administered questionnaires assessing PA in older adults.MethodsWe included the articles evaluated in the previous review and conducted a new search in PubMed, Embase, and SPORTDiscus from September 2008 to December 2019, using the following inclusion criteria (1) the purpose of the study was to evaluate at least one measurement property (reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing for construct validity, responsiveness) of a self-administered questionnaire; (2) the questionnaire intended to measure PA; (3) the questionnaire covered at least one domain of PA; (4) the study was performed in the general, healthy population of older adults; (5) the mean age of the study population was >?55 years; and (6) the article was published in English. Based on the Quality Assessment of Physical Activity Questionnaires (QAPAQ) checklist, we evaluated the quality and results of the studies. The content validity of all included questionnaires was also evaluated using the reviewers' rating. The quality of the body of evidence was evaluated for the overall construct of each questionnaire (e.g., total PA), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and walking using a modified Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsIn total, 56 articles on 40 different questionnaires (14 from the previous review and 26 from the update) were included. Reliability was assessed for 22, measurement error for four and hypotheses testing for construct validity for 38 different questionnaires. Evidence for responsiveness was available for one questionnaire. For many questionnaires, only one measurement property was assessed in only a single study. Sufficient content validity was considered for 22 questionnaires. All questionnaires displayed large measurement errors. Only versions of two questionnaires showed both sufficient reliability and hypotheses testing for construct validity, namely the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE; English version, Turkish version) for the assessment of total PA, and the Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire (PASB-Q; English version) for the assessment of MVPA. The quality of evidence for these results ranged from very low to high.ConclusionsUntil more high-quality evidence is available, we recommend the PASE for measuring total PA and the PASB-Q for measuring MVPA in older adults. However, they are not equally qualified among different languages. Future studies on the most promising questionnaires should cover all relevant measurement properties. We recommend using and improving existing PA questionnaires-instead of developing new ones-and considering the strengths and weaknesses of each PA measurement instrument for a particular purpose.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the effect of routinely administered psychiatric questionnaires on the recognition, management, and outcome of psychiatric disorders in non-psychiatric settings.Data sourcesEmbase, Medline, PsycLIT, Cinahl, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and hand searches of key journals.MethodsA systematic review of randomised controlled trials of the administration and routine feedback of psychiatric screening and outcome questionnaires to clinicians in non-psychiatric settings. Narrative overview of key design features and end points, together with a random effects quantitative synthesis of comparable studies.Main outcome measuresRecognition of psychiatric disorders after feedback of questionnaire results; interventions for psychiatric disorders; and outcome of psychiatric disorders.ResultsNine randomised studies were identified that examined the use of common psychiatric instruments in primary care and general hospital settings. Studies compared the effect of the administration of these instruments followed by the feedback of the results to clinicians, with administration with no feedback. Meta-analytic pooling was possible for four of these studies (2457 participants), which measured the effect of feedback on the recognition of depressive disorders. Routine administration and feedback of scores for all patients (irrespective of score) did not increase the overall rate of recognition of mental disorders such as anxiety and depression (relative risk of detection of depression by clinician after feedback 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.09). Two studies showed that routine administration followed by selective feedback for only high scorers increased the rate of recognition of depression (relative risk of detection of depression after feedback 2.64, 1.62 to 4.31). This increased recognition, however, did not translate into an increased rate of intervention. Overall, studies of routine administration of psychiatric measures did not show an effect on patient outcome.ConclusionsThe routine measurement of outcome is a costly exercise. Little evidence shows that it is of benefit in improving psychosocial outcomes of those with psychiatric disorder managed in non-psychiatric settings.

Project description:BackgroundThe management of diabetes is complex. There is growing recognition of the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as a standardized method of obtaining an outlook on patients' functional status and well-being. However, no systematic reviews have summarized the studies that investigate the measurement properties of diabetes PROMs.ObjectiveOur aims were to conduct a systematic review of studies investigating the measurement properties of diabetes PROMs by evaluating the methodological quality and overall level of evidence of these PROMs and to categorize them based on the outcome measures assessed.MethodsThis study was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Relevant articles were retrieved from the Embase, PubMed, and PsychINFO databases. The PROMs were evaluated with the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) guidelines.ResultsA total of 363 articles evaluating the measurement properties of PROMs for diabetes in the adult population were identified, of which 238 unique PROMs from 248 studies reported in 209 articles were validated in the type 2 diabetes population. PROMs with at least a moderate level of evidence for ≥5 of 9 measurement properties include the Chinese version of the Personal Diabetes Questionnaire (C-PDQ), Diabetes Self-Management Instrument Short Form (DSMI-20), and Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale in Hong Kong primary care patients (C-ITAS-HK), of which the C-PDQ has a "sufficient (+)" rating for >4 measurement properties. A total of 43 PROMs meet the COSMIN guidelines for recommendation for use.ConclusionsThis study identified and synthesized evidence for the measurement properties of 238 unique PROMs for patients with type 2 diabetes and categorized the PROMs according to their outcome measures. These findings may assist clinicians and researchers in selecting appropriate high-quality PROMs for clinical practice and research.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020180978; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020180978.

Project description:BackgroundThe internet is now a major source of health information. With the growth of internet users, eHealth literacy has emerged as a new concept for digital health care. Therefore, health professionals need to consider the eHealth literacy of consumers when providing care utilizing digital health technologies.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify currently available eHealth literacy instruments and evaluate their measurement properties to provide robust evidence to researchers and clinicians who are selecting an eHealth literacy instrument.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of self-reported eHealth literacy instruments by applying the updated COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) methodology.ResultsThis study included 7 instruments from 41 articles describing 57 psychometric studies, as identified in 4 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo). No eHealth literacy instrument provided evidence for all measurement properties. The eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS) was originally developed with a single-factor structure under the definition of eHealth literacy before the rise of social media and the mobile web. That instrument was evaluated in 18 different languages and 26 countries, involving diverse populations. However, various other factor structures were exhibited: 7 types of two-factor structures, 3 types of three-factor structures, and 1 bifactor structure. The transactional eHealth literacy instrument (TeHLI) was developed to reflect the broader concept of eHealth literacy and was demonstrated to have a sufficient low-quality and very low-quality evidence for content validity (relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility) and sufficient high-quality evidence for structural validity and internal consistency; however, that instrument has rarely been evaluated.ConclusionsThe eHealth literacy scale was the most frequently investigated instrument. However, it is strongly recommended that the instrument's content be updated to reflect recent advancements in digital health technologies. In addition, the transactional eHealth literacy instrument needs improvements in content validity and further psychometric studies to increase the credibility of its synthesized evidence.

Dataset Information

Measurement properties of depression questionnaires in patients with diabetes: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets