-
Implementation Science : IS Aug 2020Implementation research aims to facilitate the timely and routine implementation and sustainment of evidence-based interventions and services. A glaring gap in this... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Implementation research aims to facilitate the timely and routine implementation and sustainment of evidence-based interventions and services. A glaring gap in this endeavour is the capability of researchers, healthcare practitioners and managers to quantitatively evaluate implementation efforts using psychometrically sound instruments. To encourage and support the use of precise and accurate implementation outcome measures, this systematic review aimed to identify and appraise studies that assess the measurement properties of quantitative implementation outcome instruments used in physical healthcare settings.
METHOD
The following data sources were searched from inception to March 2019, with no language restrictions: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL and the Cochrane library. Studies that evaluated the measurement properties of implementation outcome instruments in physical healthcare settings were eligible for inclusion. Proctor et al.'s taxonomy of implementation outcomes was used to guide the inclusion of implementation outcomes: acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption, penetration, implementation cost and sustainability. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Psychometric quality of the included instruments was assessed using the Contemporary Psychometrics checklist (ConPsy). Usability was determined by number of items per instrument.
RESULTS
Fifty-eight publications reporting on the measurement properties of 55 implementation outcome instruments (65 scales) were identified. The majority of instruments assessed acceptability (n = 33), followed by appropriateness (n = 7), adoption (n = 4), feasibility (n = 4), penetration (n = 4) and sustainability (n = 3) of evidence-based practice. The methodological quality of individual scales was low, with few studies rated as 'excellent' for reliability (6/62) and validity (7/63), and both studies that assessed responsiveness rated as 'poor' (2/2). The psychometric quality of the scales was also low, with 12/65 scales scoring 7 or more out of 22, indicating greater psychometric strength. Six scales (6/65) rated as 'excellent' for usability.
CONCLUSION
Investigators assessing implementation outcomes quantitatively should select instruments based on their methodological and psychometric quality to promote consistent and comparable implementation evaluations. Rather than developing ad hoc instruments, we encourage further psychometric testing of instruments with promising methodological and psychometric evidence.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017065348.
Topics: Checklist; Delivery of Health Care; Health Facilities; Humans; Psychometrics; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 32811517
DOI: 10.1186/s13012-020-01027-6 -
European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2022An unprecedentedly large number of people worldwide are forcibly displaced, of which more than 40 percent are under 18 years of age. Forcibly displaced children and... (Review)
Review
An unprecedentedly large number of people worldwide are forcibly displaced, of which more than 40 percent are under 18 years of age. Forcibly displaced children and youth have often been exposed to stressful life events and are therefore at increased risk of developing mental health issues. Hence, early screening and assessment for mental health problems is of great importance, as is research addressing this topic. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the reliability and validity of mental health assessment tools for this population. The aim of the present study was to synthesise the existing evidence on psychometric properties of patient reported outcome measures [PROMs] for assessing the mental health of asylum-seeking, refugee and internally displaced children and youth. Systematic searches of the literature were conducted in four electronic databases: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and Web of Science. The methodological quality of the studies was examined using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Furthermore, the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties were used to evaluate the quality of the outcome measures. The search yielded 4842 articles, of which 27 met eligibility criteria. The reliability, internal consistency, structural validity, hypotheses testing and criterion validity of 28 PROMs were evaluated. Based on the results with regard to validity and reliability, as well as feasibility, we recommend the use of several instruments to measure emotional and behavioural problems, PTSD symptoms, anxiety and depression in forcibly displaced children and youth. However, despite a call for more research on the psychometric properties of mental health assessment tools for forcibly displaced children and youth, there is still a lack of studies conducted on this topic. More research is needed in order to establish cross-cultural validity of mental health assessment tools and to provide optimal cut-off scores for this population. HIGHLIGHTS Research on the psychometric properties of mental health screening and assessment tools for forcibly displaced children and youth is slowly increasing.However, based on the current evidence on the validity and reliability of screening and assessment tools for forcibly displaced children, we are not able to recommend a core set of instruments. Instead, we provide suggestions for best practice.More research of sufficient quality is important in order to establish crsoss-cultural validity and to provide optimal cut-off scores in mental health screening and assessment tools for different populations of forcibly displaced children and youth.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Mass Screening; Mental Health; Psychometrics; Refugees; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 36212114
DOI: 10.1080/20008066.2022.2126468 -
Ageing Research Reviews Apr 2022The Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) is one of the most prominent multidimensional frailty assessment instruments. This review aimed to critically appraise and summarise... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) is one of the most prominent multidimensional frailty assessment instruments. This review aimed to critically appraise and summarise its measurement properties.
METHODS
Reports were eligible if they included results of studies aimed at developing the TFI or evaluating its measurement properties. We performed a literature search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from their inception until December 8, 2021. We also searched grey literature databases. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using the "COSMIN Risk of Bias". The measurement properties were evaluated using specific criteria. We graded the quality of the evidence using a GRADE approach.
RESULTS
Sixty-three studies were included. We found moderate sufficient evidence for TFI content validity, although it is still insufficient for the comprehensiveness of its items. TFI construct validity was based on sufficient evidence from two studies of its structural validity as well as multiple hypothesis-testing for construct validity studies with inconsistent results. We did not find any studies that assessed cross-cultural validity. Only one of TFI's three dimensions showed sufficient evidence for the internal consistency of its scores, and results in test-retest reliability were inconsistent. The TFI showed high sufficient concurrent validity with the comprehensive geriatric assessment. We identified several studies assessing its predictive validity for adverse frailty-related outcomes, although most of the evidence from these studies was insufficient. We did not find any studies that assessed the responsiveness of TFI scores.
CONCLUSIONS
The TFI had evidence gaps in several relevant measurement properties. Further research is needed to strengthen its usefulness as a clinical decision-making tool.
Topics: Aged; Frail Elderly; Frailty; Humans; Psychometrics; Reproducibility of Results; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 35150901
DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2022.101588 -
International Journal of Molecular... Apr 2024Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), characterized by clinical diversity, poses diagnostic challenges often reliant on subjective assessments. Metabolomics... (Review)
Review
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), characterized by clinical diversity, poses diagnostic challenges often reliant on subjective assessments. Metabolomics presents an objective approach, seeking biomarkers for precise diagnosis and targeted interventions. This review synthesizes existing metabolomic insights into ADHD, aiming to reveal biological mechanisms and diagnostic potentials. A thorough PubMed and Web of Knowledge search identified studies exploring blood/urine metabolites in ADHD-diagnosed or psychometrically assessed children and adolescents. Synthesis revealed intricate links between ADHD and altered amino acid metabolism, neurotransmitter dysregulation (especially dopamine and serotonin), oxidative stress, and the kynurenine pathway impacting neurotransmitter homeostasis. Sleep disturbance markers, notably in melatonin metabolism, and stress-induced kynurenine pathway activation emerged. Distinct metabolic signatures, notably in the kynurenine pathway, show promise as potential diagnostic markers. Despite limitations like participant heterogeneity, this review underscores the significance of integrated therapeutic approaches targeting amino acid metabolism, neurotransmitters, and stress pathways. While guiding future research, this overview of the metabolomic findings in ADHD suggests directions for precision diagnostics and personalized ADHD interventions.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Biomarkers; Metabolome; Metabolomics; Neurotransmitter Agents; Oxidative Stress
PubMed: 38673970
DOI: 10.3390/ijms25084385 -
Neuropsychology Review Sep 2022Several tools have been developed to assess executive function (EFs) and adaptive functioning, although in mainly Western populations. Information on tools for... (Review)
Review
Several tools have been developed to assess executive function (EFs) and adaptive functioning, although in mainly Western populations. Information on tools for low-and-middle-income country children is scanty. A scoping review of such instruments was therefore undertaken.We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis- Scoping Review extension (PRISMA-ScR) checklist (Tricco et al., in Annals of Internal Medicine 169(7), 467-473, 2018). A search was made for primary research papers of all study designs that focused on development or adaptation of EF or adaptive function tools in low-and-middle-income countries, published between 1 January 1894 to 15 September 2020. 14 bibliographic databases were searched, including several non-English databases and the data were independently charted by at least 2 reviewers.The search strategy identified 5675 eligible abstracts, which was pruned down to 570 full text articles. These full-text articles were then manually screened for eligibility with 51 being eligible. 41 unique tools coming in 49 versions were reviewed. Of these, the Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF- multiple versions), Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), Go/No-go and the Rey-Osterrieth complex figure (ROCF) had the most validations undertaken for EF tests. For adaptive functions, the tools with the most validation studies were the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales (VABS- multiple versions) and the Child Function Impairment Rating Scale (CFIRS- first edition).There is a fair assortment of tests available that have either been developed or adapted for use among children in developing countries but with limited range of validation studies. However, their psychometric adequacy for this population was beyond the scope of this paper.
Topics: Brain; Child; Developing Countries; Executive Function; Humans; Neuropsychological Tests; Psychometrics
PubMed: 34870774
DOI: 10.1007/s11065-021-09529-w -
International Journal of Environmental... Apr 2022This systematic review aimed to identify the physical/motor fitness tests for nursing home residents and to examine their psychometric properties. Electronic databases... (Review)
Review
This systematic review aimed to identify the physical/motor fitness tests for nursing home residents and to examine their psychometric properties. Electronic databases were searched for articles published between January 2005 and October 2021 using MeSh terms and relevant keywords. Of the total of 4196 studies identified, 3914 were excluded based on title, abstracts, or because they were duplicates. The remaining 282 studies were full-text analyzed, and 41 were excluded, resulting in 241 studies included in the review. The most common physical component assessed was muscle strength; 174 (72.2%) studies assessed this component. Balance (138 studies, 57.3%) and agility (102 studies, 42.3%) were the second and third components, respectively, most widely assessed. In this review, we also describe the most used assessment tests for each physical/motor component. Some potentially relevant components such as manual dexterity and proprioception have been little considered. There are few studies assessing the psychometric properties of the tests for nursing home residents, although the data show that, in general, they are reliable. This review provides valuable information to researchers and health-care professionals regarding the physical/motor tests used in nursing home residences, helping them select the screening tools that could most closely fit their study objectives.
Topics: Exercise; Muscle Strength; Nursing Homes; Physical Fitness; Psychometrics
PubMed: 35564453
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095058 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2023Considering the growing number of gamers worldwide and increasing public concerns regarding the negative consequences of problematic gaming, the aim of the present... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Considering the growing number of gamers worldwide and increasing public concerns regarding the negative consequences of problematic gaming, the aim of the present systematic review was to provide a comprehensive overview of gaming disorder (GD) by identifying empirical studies that investigate biological, psychological, and social factors of GD using screening tools with well-defined psychometric properties.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted through PsycINFO, PubMed, RISS, and KISS, and papers published up to January 2022 were included. Studies were screened based on the GD diagnostic tool usage, and only five scales with well-established psychometric properties were included. A total of 93 studies were included in the synthesis, and the results were classified into three groups based on biological, psychological, and social factors.
RESULTS
Biological factors ( = 8) included reward, self-concept, brain structure, and functional connectivity. Psychological factors ( = 67) included psychiatric symptoms, psychological health, emotion regulation, personality traits, and other dimensions. Social factors ( = 29) included family, social interaction, culture, school, and social support.
DISCUSSION
When the excess amount of assessment tools with varying psychometric properties were controlled for, mixed results were observed with regards to impulsivity, social relations, and family-related factors, and some domains suffered from a lack of study results to confirm any relevant patterns.
CONCLUSION
More longitudinal and neurobiological studies, consensus on a diagnostic tool with well-defined psychometric properties, and an in-depth understanding of gaming-related factors should be established to settle the debate regarding psychometric weaknesses of the current diagnostic system and for GD to gain greater legitimacy in the field of behavioral addiction.
PubMed: 37533885
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1200230 -
Women and Birth : Journal of the... Nov 2023Measuring maternity care outcomes based on what women value is critical to promoting woman-centred maternity care. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Measuring maternity care outcomes based on what women value is critical to promoting woman-centred maternity care. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are instruments that enable service users to assess healthcare service and system performance.
AIM
To identify and critically appraise the risk of bias, woman-centricity (content validity) and psychometric properties of maternity PROMs published in the scientific literature.
METHODS
MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and Embase were systematically searched for relevant records between 01/01/2010 and 07/10/2021. Included articles underwent risk of bias, content validity and psychometric properties assessments in line with COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidance. PROM results were summarised according to language subgroups and an overall recommendation for use was determined.
FINDINGS
Forty-four studies reported on the development and psychometric evaluation of 9 maternity PROMs, grouped into 32 language subgroups. Risk of bias assessments for the PROM development and content validity showed inadequate or doubtful methodological quality. Internal consistency reliability, hypothesis testing (for construct validity), structural validity and test-retest reliability varied markedly in sufficiency and evidence quality. No PROMs received a level 'A' recommendation, required for real-world use.
CONCLUSION
Maternity PROMs identified in this systematic review had poor quality evidence for their measurement properties and lacked sufficient content validity, indicating a lack of woman-centricity in instrument development. Future research should prioritise women's voices in deciding what is relevant, comprehensive and comprehensible to measure, as this will impact overall validity and reliability and facilitate real-world use.
PubMed: 37316400
DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2023.05.009 -
Systematic Reviews Nov 2023Medication adherence has a major impact on reducing mortality and healthcare costs related to the treatment of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes mellitus. Selecting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Medication adherence has a major impact on reducing mortality and healthcare costs related to the treatment of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes mellitus. Selecting the best patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) among the many available for this kind of patient is extremely important. This study aims to critically assess, compare and synthesize the quality of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures to assess medication adherence among patients with cardiovascular diseases and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus.
METHODS
This review followed the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines and was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The searches were performed in Web of Science, SCOPUS, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, and ProQuest (gray literature).
RESULTS
A total of 110 records encompassing 27 different PROMs were included in the review. The included records were published between 1986 and 2023, most of which reported studies conducted in the United States and were published in English. None of the PROMs were classified in the category "a", thus being recommended for use due to the quality of its measurement properties. The PROMs that should not be recommended for use (category "c") are the MTA, GMAS, DMAS-7, MALMAS, ARMS-D, and 5-item questionnaire. The remaining PROMs, e.g., MMAS-8, SMAQ, MEDS, MNPS, ARMS-12, MGT, MTA-OA, MTA-Insulin, LMAS-14, MARS-5, A-14, ARMS-10, IADMAS, MAQ, MMAS-5, ProMAS, ARMS-7, 3-item questionnaire, AS, 12-item questionnaire, and Mascard were considered as having the potential to be recommended for use (category "b").
CONCLUSION
None of the included PROMs met the criteria for being classified as trusted and recommended for use for patients with cardiovascular diseases and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, 21 PROMs have the potential to be recommended for use, but further studies are needed to ensure their quality based on the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019129109.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Cardiovascular Diseases; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Surveys and Questionnaires; Psychometrics
PubMed: 37993931
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02340-z -
European Journal of Physical and... Jun 2023The objective of this study was to identify and review the subjective assessment tools validated in patients with fibromyalgia, identifying their most significant...
INTRODUCTION
The objective of this study was to identify and review the subjective assessment tools validated in patients with fibromyalgia, identifying their most significant structural characteristics, as well as the psychometric characteristics analyzed in each of the identified instruments.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO with the following reference: CRD42022306878. It analyzed documents published until June 30, 2022, through the Medline, Pedro and Scopus, Dialnet, Cinahl and Latin Index databases. The keywords used were: 1) fibromyalgia; 2) assessment; 3) questionnaire; 4) reliability; 5) validity; 6) scale; and 7) validation study. Combined using the Boolean operators "AND" and "OR." The included articles were analyzed to extract: data on the structural characteristics of the questionnaires (including acronym, year of publication, number of items, sub-categories, time to complete the questionnaire, measurement range, cutoff score and cost) and psychometric characteristics of the selected questionnaires, including data on reliability (Cronbach's alpha and test-retest) and data on the validity of the questionnaires (content, construct and criterion validity).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Twenty-two studies containing 16 questionnaires were analyzed. The quality and risk of bias assessment was performed following the COSMIN checklist. In general, the quality of the subjective assessment studies validated in the population with fibromyalgia was good, with the exception of 5 studies, which did not exceed 5 points out of 10. The first questionnaire analyzed was published in 1991, and the last in 2020; the number of items ranged from 3 to 60. The most measured subcategories are function, overall impact and symptoms; other studies also include sleep and cognition disturbances. Only 6 studies described the time to complete them. The most analyzed psychometric characteristics were reliability (analyzed by 13 questionnaires), validity (analyzed by 7) and error measures (provided by only 3 of them).
CONCLUSIONS
There is a wide range of questionnaires specifically designed for patients with fibromyalgia that present good and/or excellent basic psychometric characteristics. The structural characteristics of the identified instruments were very heterogeneous, which makes it possible to select those that best adapt to the clinical/investigator scenario where the tool will be used.
Topics: Humans; Fibromyalgia; Reproducibility of Results; Surveys and Questionnaires; Psychometrics; Cognitive Dysfunction
PubMed: 37184415
DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.23.07762-6