Dataset Information

Tools Measuring Quality of Death, Dying, and Care, Completed after Death: Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Measuring 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. OBJECTIVE:This systematic review identified and critically appraised the psychometric properties and applicability of tools used after death. METHOD:We 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). RESULTS:The 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. CONCLUSION:Four tools demonstrated some promise, but no single tool was consistent across all psychometric properties assessed. All tools identified would benefit from further psychometric testing.

SUBMITTER: Kupeli N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6397142 | biostudies-other | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Tools Measuring Quality of Death, Dying, and Care, Completed after Death: Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties.

Kupeli Nuriye N Candy Bridget B Tamura-Rose Gabrielle G Schofield Guy G Webber Natalie N Hicks Stephanie E SE Floyd Theodore T Vivat Bella B Sampson Elizabeth L EL Stone Patrick P Aspden Trefor T

The patient 20190401 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Measuring 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.<h4>Objective</h4>This systematic review identified and critically appraised the psychometric proper ...[more]

PMID: 30141020

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: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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although 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. METHODS:Searches 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. RESULTS:Thirty-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. CONCLUSIONS:Despite several needs assessment tools exist to assess care needs in cancer patients, further improvement of already existing and promising instruments is recommended.

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: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.

Dataset Information

Tools Measuring Quality of Death, Dying, and Care, Completed after Death: Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties.

Publications

Tools Measuring Quality of Death, Dying, and Care, Completed after Death: Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets