-
The Journal of Pain Dec 2022This study provides evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for the instruments to measure the five Pelvic Girdle Pain Core Outcome Set (PGP-COS): pain frequency,... (Review)
Review
Outcome Measurement Instruments and Evidence-based Recommendations for Measurement of the Pelvic Girdle Pain Core Outcome Set (PGP-COS): A Systematic Review and Consensus Process.
This study provides evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for the instruments to measure the five Pelvic Girdle Pain Core Outcome Set (PGP-COS): pain frequency, pain intensity/severity, function/disability/activity limitation, health-related quality of life and fear avoidance. Studies evaluating measurement properties of instruments measuring any PGP-COS outcome in women with PGP were identified through a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and PEDro databases (inception-July 2021). The methodological quality of studies and quality of measurement properties were evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. Quality criteria and the synthesized evidence were graded using the modified grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. A consensus meeting with PGP stakeholders was then held to establish recommendations, based on the evidence, for the instruments that should be used to measure the PGP-COS. Ten instruments were identified from 17 studies. No instrument showed high quality evidence for all measurement properties and/or measured all PGP-COS outcomes. Based on current evidence and consensus, the Pelvic Girdle Questionnaire (PGQ), the Short Form-8 (SF-8) and the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) are recommended for measuring the PGP-COS. Future research should establish additional measurement properties of instruments and to substantiate these recommendations.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pelvic Girdle Pain; Consensus; Quality of Life; Surveys and Questionnaires; Outcome Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 36115519
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2022.08.003 -
Implementation Science : IS Sep 2023Evidence-based practice (EBP) is well known to most healthcare professionals. Implementing EBP in clinical practice is a complex process that can be challenging and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Evidence-based practice (EBP) is well known to most healthcare professionals. Implementing EBP in clinical practice is a complex process that can be challenging and slow. Lack of EBP knowledge, skills, attitudes, self-efficacy, and behavior can be essential barriers that should be measured using valid and reliable instruments for the population in question. Results from previous systematic reviews show that information regarding high-quality instruments that measure EBP attitudes, behavior, and self-efficacy in various healthcare disciplines need to be improved. This systematic review aimed to summarize the measurement properties of existing instruments that measure healthcare professionals' EBP attitudes, behaviors, and self-efficacy.
METHODS
We included studies that reported measurement properties of instruments that measure healthcare professionals' EBP attitudes, behaviors, and self-efficacy. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, HaPI, AMED via Ovid, and Cinahl via Ebscohost were searched in October 2020. The search was updated in December 2022. The measurement properties extracted included data on the item development process, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, and measurement error. The quality assessment, rating of measurement properties, synthesis, and modified grading of the evidence were conducted in accordance with the COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews.
RESULTS
Thirty-four instruments that measure healthcare professionals' EBP attitudes, behaviors or self-efficacy were identified. Seventeen of the 34 were validated in two or more healthcare disciplines. Nurses were most frequently represented (n = 53). Despite the varying quality of instrument development and content validity studies, most instruments received sufficient ( +) ratings on content validity, with the quality of evidence graded as "very low" in most cases. Structural validity and internal consistency were the measurement properties most often assessed, and reliability and measurement error were most rarely assessed. The quality assessment results and overall rating of these measurement properties varied, but the quality of evidence was generally graded higher for these properties than for content validity.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the summarized results, the constructs, and the population of interest, several instruments can be recommended for use in various healthcare disciplines. However, future studies should strive to use qualitative methods to further develop existing EBP instruments and involve the target population.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This review is registered in PROSPERO. CRD42020196009. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020196009.
Topics: Humans; Attitude of Health Personnel; Evidence-Based Practice; Reproducibility of Results; Self Efficacy; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 37705031
DOI: 10.1186/s13012-023-01301-3 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2023Increasing attention on workplace wellbeing and growth in workplace wellbeing interventions has highlighted the need to measure workers' wellbeing. This systematic...
INTRODUCTION
Increasing attention on workplace wellbeing and growth in workplace wellbeing interventions has highlighted the need to measure workers' wellbeing. This systematic review sought to identify the most valid and reliable published measure/s of wellbeing for workers developed between 2010 to 2020.
METHODS
Electronic databases Health and Psychosocial Instruments, APA PsycInfo, and Scopus were searched. Key search terms included variations of AND . Studies and properties of wellbeing measures were then appraised using Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments.
RESULTS
Eighteen articles reported development of new wellbeing instruments and eleven undertook a psychometric validation of an existing wellbeing instrument in a specific country, language, or context. Generation and pilot testing of items for the 18 newly developed instruments were largely rated 'Inadequate'; only two were rated as 'Very Good'. None of the studies reported measurement properties of responsiveness, criterion validity, or content validity. The three instruments with the greatest number of positively rated measurement properties were the Personal Growth and Development Scale, The University of Tokyo Occupational Mental Health well-being 24 scale, and the Employee Well-being scale. However, none of these newly developed worker wellbeing instruments met the criteria for adequate instrument design.
DISCUSSION
This review provides researchers and clinicians a synthesis of information to help inform appropriate instrument selection in measurement of workers' wellbeing.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=79044, identifier: PROSPERO, CRD42018079044.
Topics: Humans; Mental Health; Health Personnel; Language; Workplace; Working Conditions
PubMed: 37293618
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1053179 -
Quality Management in Health Care 2020This review used the recent COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) rating system, which gives the reader the ability to...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
This review used the recent COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) rating system, which gives the reader the ability to find appropriate instruments in a simple way. Shared decision-making (SDM) is part of health professionals', nurses', and patients' interaction about fundamental and special nursing care issues. The objective of this study was to critically appraise instruments that measure SDM in health care-related decisions according to the COSMIN criteria.
METHODS
This review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline. A thorough search identified SMD measures via PubMed, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EBSCO Host, Ovid journals, SAGE journals, and Google Scholar search engine through November 2018 and updated on March 24, 2019. A rating system with "very good," "adequate," "doubtful," or "inadequate" for COSMIN was used.
RESULTS
The 17 instruments reported in this review are varied in the measured perspectives; observer-based viewpoint, patient questionnaires, provider questionnaires, and physician questionnaires, or even mixed perspectives. Only one instrument (OPTION 12 Scale) received an excellent rating across all 5 COSMIN validity rating sections in content, structural, and criterion validity.
CONCLUSION
Most of the instruments scored poorly on the COSMIN checklist. Despite the vast number of instruments measuring SDM, researchers must undertake critical appraisal before selecting an acceptable instrument that meets the specific research goal, as well as the quality requirements.
Topics: Decision Making; Health Personnel; Humans; Patients; Professional-Patient Relations
PubMed: 32224789
DOI: 10.1097/QMH.0000000000000250 -
Value in Health : the Journal of the... Jan 2023This study aimed to conduct a scoping review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and investigate which work productivity loss outcomes were measured in these RCTs,... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to conduct a scoping review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and investigate which work productivity loss outcomes were measured in these RCTs, how each outcome was measured and analyzed, and how the results for each outcome were presented.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted from January 2010 to April 2020 from 2 databases: PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data on country, study population, disease focus, sample size, work productivity loss outcomes measured (absenteeism, presenteeism, employment status changes), and methods used to measure, report, and analyze each work productivity loss outcome were extracted and analyzed.
RESULTS
We found 435 studies measuring absenteeism or presenteeism, of which 155 studies (35.6%) measured both absenteeism and presenteeism and were included in our final review. Only 9 studies also measured employment status changes. The most used questionnaire was the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire. The analysis of absenteeism and presenteeism data was mostly done using regression models (n = 98, n = 98, respectively) for which a normal distribution was assumed (n = 77, n = 89, respectively). Absenteeism results were most often presented in time whereas presenteeism was commonly presented using a percent scale or score.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of consensus on how to measure, analyze, and present work productivity loss outcomes in RCTs published in the past 10 years. The diversity of measurement, analysis, and presentation methods used in RCTs may make comparability challenging. There is a need for guidelines providing recommendations to standardize the comprehensiveness and the appropriateness of methods used to measure, analyze, and report work productivity loss in RCTs.
Topics: Humans; Absenteeism; Efficiency; Employment; Presenteeism; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 35961865
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.06.015 -
Nursing & Health Sciences Mar 2021This systematic review aimed to critique the process of development and psychometric properties of tools measuring respectful or disrespectful maternity care experienced... (Review)
Review
This systematic review aimed to critique the process of development and psychometric properties of tools measuring respectful or disrespectful maternity care experienced by women during labor and birth in low- and middle-income countries. The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched from their inception to February 2020. Methodological quality was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. Six tools measuring respectful maternity care during the intrapartum period were identified. Measurement error, cross-cultural validity, and responsiveness were not evaluated by any tool developers, while structural validity, internal consistency, and hypothesis testing were the most frequently assessed measurement properties. Interestingly, this review could not identify any measures of disrespectful care even though most included measures focused on disrespect and abuse. No measure was of sufficient quality to determine women's experiences of disrespectful and respectful maternity care in low- and middle-income countries. New valid and reliable measures using rigorous approaches to tool development are required.
Topics: Checklist; Female; Humans; Maternal Health Services; Maternal-Child Nursing; Parturition; Pregnancy; Psychometrics
PubMed: 32677167
DOI: 10.1111/nhs.12756 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Jun 2021Increasing incidences of syphilis highlight the preoccupation with the occurrence of neurosyphilis. This study aimed to understand the current diagnostic tools and their...
PURPOSE
Increasing incidences of syphilis highlight the preoccupation with the occurrence of neurosyphilis. This study aimed to understand the current diagnostic tools and their performance to detect neurosyphilis, including new technologies and the variety of existing methods.
METHODS
We searched databases to select articles that reported neurosyphilis diagnostic methods and assessed their accuracy, presenting sensitivity and specificity values. Information was synthesized in tables. The risk of bias was examined using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy recommendations.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were included. The main finding was a remarkable diversity of tests, which had varied purposes, techniques, and evaluation methodologies. There was no uniform criterion or gold standard to define neurosyphilis. The current basis for its diagnosis is clinical suspicion and cerebrospinal fluid analysis. There are new promising tests such as PCR tests and chemokine measurement assays.
CONCLUSIONS
The diagnosis of neurosyphilis is still a challenge, despite the variety of existing and developing tests. We believe that the multiplicity of reference standards adopted as criteria for diagnosis reveals the imprecision of the current definitions of neurosyphilis. An important next step for the scientific community is to create a universally accepted diagnostic definition for this disease.
Topics: Chemokines; Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures; Humans; Neurosyphilis; Polymerase Chain Reaction; Reference Standards; Sensitivity and Specificity; Treponema pallidum
PubMed: 34126948
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06264-8 -
Evaluation & the Health Professions Oct 2023This systematic review aimed to identify and compare instruments measuring nurses' organizational well-being, summarise the dimensions measured by these instruments, the... (Review)
Review
This systematic review aimed to identify and compare instruments measuring nurses' organizational well-being, summarise the dimensions measured by these instruments, the statistical analysis performed for validity evidence and identify an instrument that comprehensively investigates nurses' organizational well-being. The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the PRISMA checklist were used as guidelines. The search was conducted on Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Scopus. Critical appraisal and data extraction were drawn on the COSMIN checklist. Dimensions were conceptually synthesized by the measurement concepts' similarity. Twenty-two articles were retrieved and they included 21 instruments that measured nurses' organizational well-being. The instruments vary by dimension number (range 2-19), items (range 12-118) and concept elicitation. A plurality of methodologies has been used in instrument development and assessments of evidence for validity. Only four instruments reported a concurrent criterion validity or a measurement comparison with an already tested-for-validity instrument. Similar dimensions were leadership and support, relationships and communication, work-family balance, work demands, violence, control and autonomy, satisfaction and motivation, work environment and resources, careers, and organizational policy. This review underlines the core areas of the instruments that measure nursing organizational well-being. It allows administrators and researchers to choose the appropriate instruments for monitoring this multidimensional concept.
PubMed: 37857313
DOI: 10.1177/01632787231207018 -
British Journal of Sports Medicine Aug 2022Evaluate properties of outcome measures for gluteal tendinopathy. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Evaluate properties of outcome measures for gluteal tendinopathy.
DESIGN
Multistage scoping/systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PEDro, CINAHL, SPORTDISCUS were searched (December 2021) to identify measures used to evaluate gluteal tendinopathy. Measures were mapped to the core health domains for tendinopathy. Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PubMed were searched (December 2021) for studies evaluating measurement properties of gluteal tendinopathy outcome measures captured in the initial search. Both reviews included studies that evaluated a treatment in participants with gluteal tendinopathy, diagnosed by a professional. Consensus-based-Standards for the Selection of Health Instruments methodology were followed-including bias assessment and synthesis of findings.
RESULTS
Six studies reported on the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Gluteal Tendinopathy (VISA-G). One study reported on the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-activities of daily living (ADL) and Sport.The VISA-G had moderate-quality evidence of sufficient construct validity (known group) and responsiveness (pre-post intervention), low-quality evidence of sufficient reliability, measurement error, comprehensibility and insufficient construct validity (convergent), and very low-quality evidence of sufficient comprehensiveness, relevance and responsiveness (comparison with other outcome measures).Both the HOS(ADL) and HOS(Sport) had very low-quality evidence of sufficient reliability, relevance and insufficient construct validity and comprehensiveness. The HOS(ADL) had very low-quality evidence of sufficient comprehensibility and insufficient measurement error. The HOS(Sport) had very low quality evidence of inconsistent comprehensibility and sufficient measurement error.
CONCLUSION
Rigorously validated outcome measures for gluteal tendinopathy are lacking. The VISA-G is the preferred available option to capture the disability associated with gluteal tendinopathy.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Reproducibility of Results; Tendinopathy
PubMed: 35396205
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-104548 -
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Jun 2024Coronoid fractures usually occur in the presence of a significant osseoligamentous injury to the elbow. Fracture size and location correlate with degree of instability... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Coronoid fractures usually occur in the presence of a significant osseoligamentous injury to the elbow. Fracture size and location correlate with degree of instability and many authors have attempted to analyze the effect of fracture variation on decision making and outcome. There remains no standardized technique for measuring coronoid height or fracture size. The aim of this study was to appraise the literature regarding techniques for coronoid height measurement in order to understand variation.
METHODS
Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. A search was performed to identify studies with either a description of coronoid height, fracture size, or bone loss using the terms (Coronoid) AND (Measurement) OR (Size) OR (Height). Articles were shortlisted by screening for topic relevance based on title, abstract and, if required, full-text review. Exclusion criteria were non-English articles, those on nonhuman species or parts other than the ulna coronoid process, and studies that included patients with pre-existing elbow pathology. Shortlisted articles were grouped based on study type, imaging modality, measurement technique, and measurement parameter as well as its location along the coronoid.
RESULTS
Thirty out of the initially identified 494 articles met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one articles were clinical studies, 8 were cadaveric studies, and 1 combined patients as well as cadavers. A variety of imaging modalities (plain radiographs, 2-dimensional computed tomography [CT], 3-dimensional CT, magnetic resonance imaging or a combination of these) were used with CT scan (either 2-dimensional images or 3-dimensional reconstructions or both) being the most common modality used by 21 studies. Measurement technique also varied from uniplanar linear measurements in 15 studies to multiplanar area and volumetric measurements in 6 studies to techniques describing various angles and indices as an indirect measure of coronoid height in 8 studies. Across the 30 shortlisted studies, 19 different measurement techniques were identified. Fifteen studies measured normal coronoid height while the other 15 measured intact coronoid and/or fracture fragment height. The location of this measurement was also variable between studies with measurements at the apex of the coronoid in 24/30 (80%) of studies. Measurement accuracy was assessed by only 1 study. A total of 12/30 (40%) studies reported on the interobserver and intraobserver reliability of their measurement technique.
CONCLUSION
The systemic review demonstrated considerable variability between studies that report coronoid height or fracture size measurements. This variability makes comparison of coronoid height or fracture measurements and recommendations based on these between studies unreliable. There is need for development of a consistent, easy to use, and reproducible technique for coronoid height and bone loss.
Topics: Humans; Ulna Fractures; Elbow Joint; Elbow Injuries; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Ulna
PubMed: 38521484
DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2024.01.049