The quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments

Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Purpose

The purpose of this investigation is to assess and contrast the effectiveness of the two EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D) versions-EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L-in assessing one-year quality of life outcomes for patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).

Material and method

From the medical records at the Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, 402 individuals aged 50 and above, who were one-year post-operation, were selected to fill out survey questionnaires during their return hospital visits. Of these, 231 respondents (57.5%) completed the questionnaire; 228 completed both versions, and 56 completed the EQ-5D retest questionnaire. The assessment included missing data, ceiling effects, informativity and discriminatory power, as well as response consistency, redistribution properties, and inconsistency. Reliability and validity were also evaluated.

Results

The results indicate that the EQ-5D-5L surpasses the EQ-5D-3L in construct validity, informativity, detection precision, and discriminatory power. Consistency reliability is also better in the EQ-5D-5L than in the EQ-5D-3L. Both instrument versions maintained reliable levels of test-retest reliability.

Conclusion

In patients with KOA undergoing UKA, the EQ-5D-5L has proven superior in measurement capabilities when compared with the EQ-5D-3L one-year post-operation. Thus, it is advised to utilize the EQ-5D-5L for ongoing assessments of quality of life in this specific group of patients.

PRISMA-COSMIN: response from ISOQOL's ANZ SIG leadership

ISOQOL's Australia and New Zealand Special Interest Group (ISOQOL ANZ SIG) connects local researchers and clinicians in a geographically remote region of the world. Members of our ANZ SIG have been conducting a review following COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) guidance, which outlines a comprehensive process to critically evaluate the properties of outcome measurement instruments, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Our experience has highlighted challenges for undertaking this type of review, notably a lack of consistency in how COSMIN guidance is applied and reported. In this Letter to the Editor, members of the ANZ SIG leadership discuss the PRISMA-COSMIN for Outcome Measurement Instruments; a new guideline developed to support and improve reporting of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments. We explore the potential of this guidance to improve how systematic reviews of PROMs are conducted and reported, from the perspective of a regional SIG.

Development of a child and family centred outcome measure for children and young people with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions: progress to date on the Children's Palliative Care Outcome Scale (C-POS:UK)

Background

Development of a paediatric palliative care child and family centred outcome measure is a priority for health care professionals, researchers and advocates. It is methodologically challenging to develop a measure relevant for such a heterogenous population with complex needs. Involving children in measuring development is vital.

Objective

To develop C-POS:UK (Children's Palliative Care Outcome Scale, UK), a person-centred outcome measure (PCOM) for children with life-limiting conditions and their families, and to test its psychometric properties.

Design

Sequential mixed-methods approach to PCOM development, guided by Rothrock's measure development process and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology.

Methods

(i) Qualitative interviews about priority symptoms and concerns, with embedded exploration of measure design for children with life-limiting conditions; (ii) systematic review of measure design for children; (iii) modified Delphi survey, and consultation with children, on priority items for new measure; (iv) expert item generation meeting to develop C-POS:UK; (v) cognitive testing to refine C-POS:UK; (vi) psychometric validation.

Results

(i) 106 participants described physical, emotional/psychological, spiritual/existential, social and practical concerns. Measure design was discussed by 79 participants comprising preferred response format, recall period and measure administration for children with life-limiting conditions; (ii) systematic review highlighted need for: different versions of measure accounting for child's developmental stage and cognitive ability; parent/carer involvement as proxies for very young children; and testing to clarify recall periods and response formats at different developmental stages; (iii) Delphi survey: 82 participants (in the first round), with a move towards consensus, but with some differing priorities in stakeholder groups: professionals prioritised physical symptoms, parents prioritised psychosocial and practical matters, while consulted children prioritised normality; (iv) 22 experts contributed to item generation meeting, resulting in five versions of C-POS:UK accounting for child's developmental stage and cognitive ability, and proxy involvement; (v) 48 participants cognitively tested initial C-POS:UK, informing comprehension, comprehensiveness and acceptability; (vi) psychometric validation is ongoing.

Conclusion

A sequential approach informed by Rothrock and COSMIN has supported development of the first version of C-POS:UK. Psychometric validation is underway and will be followed by implementation planning.

Patient reported outcome and experience measures among patients with central venous access devices: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Patients receiving treatment for solid tumours and haematological malignancies, among other acute and chronic health conditions, are highly dependent upon central venous access devices (CVADs) for administering chemotherapy and other complex therapies; thus, CVADs can meaningfully impact their health outcomes and experiences. This systematic review aimed to identify and critique patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and patient-reported experience measure (PREM) instruments related to CVADs.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken, commencing with an electronic search of health databases (April 2022). Studies were eligible if they used a self-reporting instrument (questionnaire) to quantitatively measure patient-reported outcomes and experiences related to CVADs (English only). Using a piloted data-extraction tool, two authors independently identified studies for full review, data extraction, and quality assessment. Data were synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

The search yielded 875 titles, of which 41 met the inclusion and no exclusion criteria. Of these, 31 reported results of purpose-built questionnaires; a further six reported results of generic measures used for CVADs; four included both purpose-built and generic measures. Overall study quality was low; only two studies evaluated both content validity and internal consistency. In total, 155 unique PROM items (across 27 studies) were extracted which encompassed five domains (e.g., 'Instrumental activities of daily living'; 'Pain and discomfort'). Similarly, 184 unique PREMs (from 31 studies) included 13 domains (e.g., 'Shared decision-making'; 'Education').

CONCLUSION

Increasingly, research and quality improvement studies about CVADs are incorporating PROM and PREM. These measures are largely purpose-built, however, and their validity and reliability have not been sufficiently established for use.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

Prospectively submitted to the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) 05 July 2020.

Hip strength does not correlate with hip and knee biomechanics during single-leg tasks: A systematic review with meta-analysis and evidence gap map

We systematically reviewed and synthesized the evidence for the relationship between hip strength and hip and knee biomechanics during single-leg tasks in uninjured and injured populations. We searched CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, SportDiscus, and Web of Science from inception to July 2024. We included cross-sectional studies with uninjured and/or injured participants that reported correlations between hip strength and hip or knee kinematics during a single-leg task. We identified 41 articles that reported the correlations between hip strength and hip or knee kinematics during a single-leg task for uninjured (n = 33) and/or injured (n = 12) populations. We identified moderate-to-strong evidence for no-to-poor relationships between most hip strength and hip and knee kinematics during a single-leg task for uninjured (r = -0.33-0.45) and injured populations (r = -0.24-0.24). We observed limited-to-moderate evidence for fair-to-moderate negative relationships between concentric and eccentric hip abduction strength and hip adduction (r = -0.52) and knee abduction kinematics (r = -0.45-0.59) for uninjured populations. Isometric hip strength may not play as important of a role in controlling lower extremity motion during single-leg tasks as previously perceived, but isokinetic strength may be a better indicator of lower extremity motion during single-leg tasks.Trial Registration:PROSPERO#CRD42020153166.

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews

PURPOSE

Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards.

METHODS

One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies' findings.

RESULTS

A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.

CONCLUSION

Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders Journals: An Exploratory Survey of the Recent Literature

PURPOSE

Inspired by a preliminary survey of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) literature conducted by Friberg et al. (2014), the current study aimed to expand the original study's findings-that SoTL was rarely published in the communication sciences and disorders (CSD) literature from 2009 to 2013-to the subsequent 8-year period (2014-2021). The latter period was of particular relevance considering the dissolution of one American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)-affiliated publication and the addition of another non-ASHA-affiliated publication during that time.

METHOD

Ten peer-reviewed CSD journals and the articles published in them were identified via a survey of the literature that used narrowly defined criteria developed in collaboration with a librarian. Five trained CSD graduate student raters compared a definition of SoTL to article abstracts to determine whether each should have been categorized as SoTL. Part 1 of the study investigated an 8-year time span, Part 2 investigated the remaining nine journals in the subsequent 5 years, and Part 3 investigated publication rates of SoTL in Teaching and Learning in Communication Sciences & Disorders (TLCSD) alone.

RESULTS

Part 1 of the study revealed that publication rates of SoTL were extremely low in the 10 surveyed CSD journals in the 8-year time span investigated. A similar and diminishing trend was found in Part 2. Even smaller percentages of journals were dedicated to SoTL. Part 3 confirmed that relatively large amounts of CSD-specific SoTL have been published in TLCSD since its inception in 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

As of 2021, SoTL articles continued to be uncommonly published in CSD journals. Until recently, scholarly teachers attempting to apply SoTL in the classroom had limited resources. Beginning in 2017, TLCSD has provided an outlet for SoTL, whereas other CSD journals seem to have published less of it. Reform of publication, peer review, tenure, and promotion policies and procedures is called for so that SoTL might be included as a valid scientific endeavor.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

METHODS

The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.

RESULTS

From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.

CONCLUSION

PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: This paper was jointly developed by Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Quality of Life Research, Journal of Patient Reported Outcomes, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes and jointly published by Elsevier Inc, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, and BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.

Prioritising nurses' and doctors' health at work: a scoping review of monitoring instruments

OBJECTIVE

Nurses' and doctors' health at work is crucial for their overall performance and the quality of care they provide. The Jobs Demands Resources (JD-R) model offers a framework for health at work, encompassing 'job demands', 'job resources', 'personal resources', 'leadership', 'well-being' and 'outcomes'. While various instruments exist to measure health, an overview of instruments specifically designed for assessing nurses and doctors health is currently missing. This study provides a comprehensive overview of available health instruments specifically developed and validated for healthcare professionals in hospital care.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies assessing the health of nurses and/or doctors in hospitals using or evaluating instruments based on the JD-R model, published between January 2011 and January 2024, excluding student-exclusive samples.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We extracted data on study and sample characteristics, as well as details of the measurement instruments, including main and subconstructs. Instruments were categorised based on the JD-R model domains. Descriptive analysis and data visualisation were performed using Excel and Python.

RESULTS

We included 1204 studies, reporting 986 unique instruments. We identified 32 comprehensive instruments suitable for broad health screening, measuring four or more of the JD-R model domains. Additionally, we identified instruments focusing on specific domains for targeted screening needs. Furthermore, we present frequently reported instruments assumed to be extensively evaluated, user-friendly, accessible and available in multiple languages.

CONCLUSIONS

Health at work cannot be determined by a single instrument alone, underscoring the multidimensional nature of workplace health. Alternatively, organisations should select instruments based on domains most relevant and applicable to their context. This approach ensures a more comprehensive assessment of health at work.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

PURPOSE

Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

METHODS

The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.

RESULTS

From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.

CONCLUSION

PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

PURPOSE

Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

METHODS

The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.

RESULTS

From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.

CONCLUSION

PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

PURPOSE

Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

METHODS

The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.

RESULTS

From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.

CONCLUSION

PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the simplified Chinese version of the knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in patients after total knee arthroplasty

Objectives

The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) has been utilized to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes in individuals following knee injuries, such as those with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and knee osteoarthritis, but has not yet been applied to individuals undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in China. The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the Simplified Chinese version of the KOOS in Chinese individuals undergoing TKA.

Methods

This study distributed 170 questionnaires, and assessed the KOOS of the participants, along with requiring them to complete the Short Form 36 (SF-36) survey. There were 35 participants completed a test-retest reliability survey with a 24-h interval, 129 participants completed a pre - surgery survey, and 119 individuals completed a post - surgery survey 6 weeks after the surgery. The following tests were conducted: Cronbach's alpha (α) to assess internal consistency, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to evaluate test-retest reliability, Spearman's correlation coefficient (ρ) to examine construct validity, effect size (ES) to detect measure responsiveness, minimal detectable change (MDC) to assess measurement errors. Floor and ceiling effects (<15%) were also asses evaluated.

Results

The simplified Chinese version of the KOOS showed good test-retest reliability in participants after TKA, with an ICC of 0.82-0.97 (95% CI). The internal consistency of the five subscales of the KOOS was good (Cronbach's α = 0.70-0.96). No floor or ceiling effects were found. Regarding construct validity, a strong positive correlation was found between each of the three KOOS subscales (activities of daily living, knee-related Quality of Life, and sport and recreation subscales) and the general health and bodily pain subscales of the SF-36 (0.53 < ρ < 0.61). The subscales of the simplified Chinese version of the KOOS showed responsiveness (ES: 0.68 to 0.86) before and after 6 weeks of physical treatment. The MDC ranged from 10.28 to 23.24.

Conclusions

The Chinese version of the KOOS showed good psychometric properties and was found to be valid, reliable, and simple as an assessment tool for symptoms, pain, activity of daily living, sports and recreational activity and quality of life for the Chinese population suffering from TKA.

Cognitive Interviewing to Develop a New Health-Related Quality of Life Measure for Parkinson's Disease: The Preference-Based Parkinson's Disease Index (PB-PDI)

Preference-based measures (PBM) for health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are essential in assessing the cost-utility of different treatment options. The preference-based Parkinson's disease Index (PB-PDI) is being developed for people with Parkinson's disease (PD). The aim of this study was to refine the PB-PDI through cognitive interviews with people with PD. Cognitive debriefing was conducted to assess patients' interpretation of items, both in English and French. Participants' feedback guided the iterative modification of the PB-PDI and items were accepted for final inclusion if they were endorsed by three consecutive participants. A total of 16 participants provided feedback on the items, refined the response options, and discussed how to clarify questions. They selected a 2-week timeframe for the PB-PDI recall period. At the end of the cognitive interviews, all seven items and their response options were endorsed in both languages. The cognitive interview process allowed us to refine items and ensure that they were clear in terms of instructions and response options from the perspective of people with PD. The next step will be to elicit preference weights to develop a scoring algorithm and assess its measurement properties.

Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of Five of the Most Recurrently Validated Child Maltreatment Assessment Instruments from 2010 to 2020

Assessment of child maltreatment has been inconsistent across literature due to its complexity, multidimensionality, and the variety of conceptualizations of this construct. Five instruments have recurrently examined psychometric properties across the last years of research: Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, Maltreatment and Abuse Chronology of Exposure, Child Abuse Potential Inventory, Identification of Parents at Risk for child Abuse and Neglect, and Psychosocial Screening Tool. This article aims to examine and wrap up the knowledge regarding the psychometric properties of these instruments. A systematic review was performed through three of the most relevant databases in order to identify the most validated instruments to assess child maltreatment from 2010 to 2020, and 19 research articles were identified. Results indicate that there is a lack of information regarding some psychometric properties and therefore, in the light of this information, it is not possible to clearly determine if there are instruments with stronger scientific evidence for their psychometric properties, although the Maltreatment and Abuse Chronology of Exposure Scale (MACE) obtained the strongest psychometric evidence. This systematic review provided a comprehensive review on the main psychometric properties of five child maltreatment instruments in order to facilitate researchers and child welfare professionals the selection of the most suitable instrument for their specific purpose. We recommend addressing these gaps of information by further examining the psychometric properties of these instruments, and developing valid and reliable instruments for early detection in child maltreatment.

Measurement Properties of Self-Report Questionnaires for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Commonly Used Instruments

(1) Background: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neurodegenerative disease. There is no evidence on the analysis of the measurement instruments available to assess quality of life in these patients, following the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist; (2) Methods: A systematic review was performed in PubMed, Embase, PEDro, Web of Science and Cochrane. The psychometric properties of the questionnaires were determined by using the COSMIN checklist. Two searches were carried out. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021249005); (3) Results: There were four published articles that analysed the measurement properties in patients with ALS for the following scales: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire 40, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, Short Form 36 Healthy Survey, Epworth Sleepiness Scale and Sickness Impact Profile. Another five scales also met the inclusion criteria: ALS-Depression-Inventory, State Trait Anxiety-Inventory, World Health Organization Quality of Life, Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire 5. Most Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) present a low-quality synthesis of evidence. It was observed an excellent pooled reliability of 0.92 (95% Confidence Interval: 0.83-0.96, I2 = 87.3%) for four dimensions for questionnaires ALSAQ-40. (4) Conclusions: There is little evidence on generic instruments. Future studies are necessary to develop new tools.

Development of a Patient-Reported Symptom Item Bank for Patients with Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Malignancies: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patients with hepatobiliary or pancreatic cancers often experience severe symptoms, resulting in a sharp decline in functioning, poor quality of life, and increased mortality risk. Early and effective management of symptoms allows a better quality of life and reduced mortality, depending on the selection of appropriate assessment of specific symptoms for a defined purpose. We aimed to develop a symptom measurement item bank for hepatobiliary or pancreatic cancers.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was applied to organize this systematic review. The articles validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for hepatobiliary or pancreatic cancer and published before December 2021 were retrieved from the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase databases and Cochrane Library. Items from the existing PROMs were selected and classified into different patient-reported symptoms based on the concepts and specific underlying constructs of the objects measured.

RESULTS

Sixteen unique PROMs were identified across the 29 eligible studies included in our analysis. Items from the literature review (14 PROMs with 421 items for which information was obtained) were selected and classified. As a result of this study, we developed a symptom item bank with 40 patient-reported symptoms and 229 assessment items for hepatobiliary or pancreatic cancer, and fatigue, pain and nausea were the most common symptom items.

CONCLUSION

We developed an item bank to assess the patient-reported symptoms of hepatobiliary or pancreatic cancer. This item bank could allow researchers to select appropriate measures of symptom and provide a basis for the development of a single-item symptom-measurement system.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Quality of Life in People Affected by Diabetic Foot: A Psychometric Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

This psychometric systematic review aimed to identify the most suitable patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of quality of life (QoL) in people affected by diabetic foot.

METHODS

We performed a literature search in MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and PsycINFO (EBSCOhost) databases from inception to February 1, 2022. We also searched gray literature databases. Eligible studies were full-text reports developing a QoL condition-specific PROM or assessing one or more of its measurement properties in people affected by diabetic foot. We assessed the methodological quality of included studies independently using the "Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments Risk of Bias" checklist. The measurement properties were evaluated using specific criteria. We graded the quality of the evidence using a "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" approach modified by Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments.

RESULTS

Forty-three reports (46 studies) providing information on the measurement properties of 10 different PROMs were included. We did not identify any instruments that could be recommended for use. We identified 2 PROMs that were not recommended for use and 8 that were potentially recommended but would require further investigation. Of these 8 PROMs, 4 had better evidence for content validity.

CONCLUSIONS

Available PROMs to measure QoL in people affected by diabetic foot have limited evidence for their measurement properties. There is no fully suitable PROM. Pending further evidence, 4 PROMs could potentially be recommended for use.

Psychometric analysis and reliability of the dental treatment motivation scale for Indonesian pregnant women

This study aimed to obtain the results of psychometric analysis and reliability of the dental treatment motivation scale (DTMS), which was adapted cross-culturally for pregnant women in Indonesia. A descriptive survey was conducted with 149 pregnant women at a maternal clinic in Bandung City, Indonesia, in December 2020. Convenience sampling was chosen as the sampling technique after the inclusion and exclusion criteria had been fulfilled. Two English experts initially translated the DTMS questionnaire from English into Indonesian and the translated questionnaire was then reviewed by four expert panels, which were modified afterwards. The validity test was carried out using the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and goodness of fit index (GFI). The internal reliability analysis used Cronbach's alpha, and the test-retest was conducted using Pearson's correlation coefficient. The psychometric analysis results were obtained from four testing stages. The first stage was the initial eigenvalue assessment, and the cumulative percentage value was >60%. The second stage was the exploratory factor analysis, with a loading factor of >0.3. The third stage consisted of the confirmatory factor analysis, forming two components of the factor structure (intrinsic and extrinsic motivations). Finally, the fourth stage was the GFI assessment, which showed the good fit model with a value of 0.903. Very high internal consistency reliability ranged from 0.985 to 0.990; the test-retest p-value of Pearson's correlation coefficient was 0.000. In conclusion, the Indonesian version of the DTMS proved to be a reliable and valid instrument to measure Indonesian pregnant women's motivation to seek oral health treatment.

Study protocol for developing, piloting and disseminating the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline: a new reporting guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are important tools in the evidence-based selection of these instruments. COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) has developed a comprehensive and widespread guideline to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments, but key information is often missing in published reviews. This hinders the appraisal of the quality of outcome measurement instruments, impacts the decisions of knowledge users regarding their appropriateness, and compromises reproducibility and interpretability of the reviews' findings. To facilitate sufficient, transparent, and consistent reporting of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments, an extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guideline will be developed: the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline.

METHODS

The PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will be developed in accordance with recommendations for reporting guideline development from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. First, a candidate reporting item list will be created through an environmental literature scan and expert consultations. Second, an international Delphi study will be conducted with systematic review authors, biostatisticians, epidemiologists, psychometricians/clinimetricians, reporting guideline developers, journal editors as well as patients, caregivers, and members of the public. Delphi panelists will rate candidate items for inclusion on a 5-point scale, suggest additional candidate items, and give feedback on item wording and comprehensibility. Third, the draft PRISMA-COSMIN guideline and user manual will be iteratively piloted by applying it to systematic reviews in several disease areas to assess its relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility, along with usability and user satisfaction. Fourth, a consensus meeting will be held to finalize the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline through roundtable discussions and voting. Last, a user manual will be developed and the final PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will be disseminated through publications, conferences, newsletters, and relevant websites. Additionally, relevant journals and organizations will be invited to endorse and implement PRISMA-COSMIN. Throughout the project, evaluations will take place to identify barriers and facilitators of involving patient/public partners and employing a virtual process.

DISCUSSION

The PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will ensure that the reports of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are complete and informative, enhancing their reproducibility, ease of use, and uptake.

Needs assessment instruments for family caregivers of cancer patients receiving palliative care: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Family caregivers of palliative cancer patients experience various supportive care needs. Appropriate self-reported instruments with robust psychological properties are required to identify these needs of family caregivers. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to identify self-reported supportive care needs assessment instruments for family caregivers of palliative cancer patients and assess their contents, psychometric properties, and applicability.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted in six English databases and four Chinese databases from inception to October 2020 and updated in June 2021. The instruments identified were evaluated using an 18-item checklist consisting of six domains: conceptual model, content validity, reliability, construct validity, scoring and interpretation, and respondent burden and presentation.

RESULTS

Six articles, describing four self-reported needs assessment instruments, were included in the review. These instruments varied significantly in terms of contents, constructs, scoring methods, and applicability. Three of these instruments were developed to assess the comprehensive supportive care needs of family caregivers, while one was specifically developed to assess the spiritual needs of family caregivers. With respect to psychometric properties, none of the instruments identified met all the criteria. Three major shortcomings were identified, namely, lack of longitudinal validity, lack of a strategy for interpreting missing data, and lack of a description of the literacy level required to understand the questions. Additionally, the instrument development processes assessed in this study lacked qualitative elements.

CONCLUSIONS

End-users need to consider contents, psychometric properties, and applicability when choosing an appropriate needs assessment instrument according to individual purpose and context. Further evaluation or development of needs assessment for the family caregivers of palliative cancer patients is needed, with a particular emphasis on caregivers' perspectives.

Measuring carer quality of life in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a systematic review of the reliability and validity of self-report instruments using COSMIN

Introduction

Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a rare, progressive, life-limiting genetic neuromuscular condition that significantly impacts the quality of life of informal caregivers. Carer quality of life is measured using heterogeneous self-report scales, yet their suitability for Duchenne remains unclear. This review aimed to identify and evaluate the reliability and validity of quality of life instruments in Duchenne carers.

Materials and methods

Systematic searches were conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. Full research articles reporting data on multiple-item self-report quality of life instruments in informal Duchenne carers were included. Extracted evidence was qualitatively synthesised and evaluated, including risk of bias, against the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments. Duchenne carer collaborators (N = 17) helped rate the instruments’ content validity.

Results

Thirty-one articles featuring thirty-two quality of life instruments were included. Content validity was rated as “inconsistent” based on very low quality evidence. For Duchenne carer collaborators, the best instrument was PedsQL Family Impact Module. Only one instrument had evidence for structural validity (rated “unsatisfactory”) and measurement invariance (rated “satisfactory”). Instruments received “satisfactory” ratings for internal consistency and mixed ratings for construct validity and responsiveness. There was no evidence for reliability, measurement error, or criterion validity.

Discussion

Instruments used to measure Duchenne carer quality of life have limited and often inconsistent supportive psychometric evidence. Further work must investigate instruments’ measurement properties in Duchenne carers and/or the development of new tools. In the interim, we recommend considering the PedsQL Family Impact Module based on Duchenne carer ratings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12955-022-01964-4.

Quality, methods, and recommendations of systematic reviews on measures of evidence-based practice: an umbrella review

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the review was to estimate the quality of systematic reviews on evidence-based practice measures across health care professions and identify differences between systematic reviews regarding approaches used to assess the adequacy of evidence-based practice measures and recommended measures.

INTRODUCTION

Systematic reviews on the psychometric properties of evidence-based practice measures guide researchers, clinical managers, and educators in selecting an appropriate measure for use. The lack of psychometric standards specific to evidence-based practice measures, in addition to recent findings suggesting the low methodological quality of psychometric systematic reviews, calls into question the quality and methods of systematic reviews examining evidence-based practice measures.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

We included systematic reviews that identified measures that assessed evidence-based practice as a whole or of constituent parts (eg, knowledge, attitudes, skills, behaviors), and described the psychometric evidence for any health care professional group irrespective of assessment context (education or clinical practice).

METHODS

We searched five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ERIC) on January 18, 2021. Two independent reviewers conducted screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal following the JBI approach. A narrative synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

Ten systematic reviews, published between 2006 and 2020, were included and focused on the following groups: all health care professionals (n = 3), nurses (n = 2), occupational therapists (n = 2), physical therapists (n = 1), medical students (n = 1), and family medicine residents (n = 1). The overall quality of the systematic reviews was low: none of the reviews assessed the quality of primary studies or adhered to methodological guidelines, and only one registered a protocol. Reporting of psychometric evidence and measurement characteristics differed. While all the systematic reviews discussed internal consistency, feasibility was only addressed by three. Many approaches were used to assess the adequacy of measures, and five systematic reviews referenced tools. Criteria for the adequacy of individual properties and measures varied, but mainly followed standards for patient-reported outcome measures or the Standards of Educational and Psychological Testing. There were 204 unique measures identified across 10 reviews. One review explicitly recommended measures for occupational therapists, three reviews identified adequate measures for all health care professionals, and one review identified measures for medical students. The 27 measures deemed adequate by these five systematic reviews are described.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest a need to improve the overall methodological quality and reporting of systematic reviews on evidence-based practice measures to increase the trustworthiness of recommendations and allow comprehensive interpretation by end users. Risk of bias is common to all the included systematic reviews, as the quality of primary studies was not assessed. The diversity of tools and approaches used to evaluate the adequacy of evidence-based practice measures reflects tensions regarding the conceptualization of validity, suggesting a need to reflect on the most appropriate application of validity theory to evidence-based practice measures.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42020160874.

Conducting Systematic Reviews of the Quality and Psychometric Properties of Health-Related Measurement Instruments: Finding the Right Tool for the Job

Many health-related measurement instruments have been developed to measure psychological constructs and whilst several instruments are usually available for a particular study, finding the right tool for the job is important. Systematic reviews of measurement properties of instruments have long been identified as a valuable strategy to ensure that we select the right tool to assess mental health. There are many important steps and procedures to guide these types of systematic reviews to find the "best fit" and this paper summarizes some of these key processes and steps. The selection of instrument(s) to use should be made considering the most recent comprehensive review of the quality of the outcome measurement instrument based on unbiased assessment of its psychometric properties, responsiveness, and generalizability of results. Researchers planning to conduct a systematic review of health-related measurement instruments should design the review beforehand using standardized frameworks. Conducting systematic reviews of the quality and psychometric properties of health-related measurement instruments is important to ensure we choose the best tool for the research question and target population.

A Visuoperceptual Measure for Videofluoroscopic Swallow Studies (VMV): A Pilot Study of Validity and Reliability in Adults with Dysphagia

The visuoperceptual measure for videofluoroscopic swallow studies (VMV) is a new measure for analysing the recordings from videofluoroscopic swallow studies (VFSS). This study evaluated the reliability and validity of the pilot version of the VMV using classical test theory (CTT) analysis, informed by the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Forty participants, diagnosed with oropharyngeal dysphagia by fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing, were recruited. The VFSS and administration of bolus textures and volumes were conducted according to a standardised protocol. Recordings of the VFSS were rated by three blinded raters: a speech-language pathologist, a radiologist and a phoniatrician. Inter- and intra-rater reliability was assessed with a weighted kappa and resulted in 0.889 and 0.944 overall, respectively. Structural validity was determined using exploratory factor analyses, which found four and five factor solutions. Internal consistency was evaluated with Cronbach's alpha coefficients, which found all but one factor scoring within an acceptable range (>0.70 and <0.95). Hypothesis testing for construct validity found the expected correlations between the severity of dysphagia and the VMV's performance, and found no impact of gender on measure performance. These results suggest that the VMV has potential as a reliable and valid measure for VFSS. Further validation with a larger sample is required, and validation using an item response theory paradigm approach is recommended.

A Systematic Review Evaluating Psychometric Properties of Parent or Caregiver Report Instruments on Child Maltreatment: Part 2: Internal Consistency, Reliability, Measurement Error, Structural Validity, Hypothesis Testing, Cross-Cultural Validity, and Criterion Validity

AIMS

Child maltreatment (CM) is global public health issue with devastating lifelong consequences. Global organizations have endeavored to eliminate CM; however, there is lack of consensus on what instruments are most suitable for the investigation and prevention of CM. This systematic review aimed to appraise the psychometric properties (other than content validity) of all current parent- or caregiver-reported CM instruments and recommend the most suitable for use.

METHOD

A systematic search of the CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Sociological Abstracts databases was performed. The evaluation of psychometric properties was conducted according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines for systematic reviews of patient-report outcome measures. Responsiveness was beyond the scope of this systematic review, and content validity has been reported on in a companion paper (Part 1). Only instruments developed and published in English were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies reported on selected psychometric properties of 15 identified instruments. The methodological quality of the studies was overall adequate. The psychometric properties of the instruments were generally indeterminate or not reported due to incomplete or missing psychometric data; high-quality evidence on the psychometric properties was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

No instruments could be recommended as most suitable for use in clinic and research. Nine instruments were identified as promising based on current psychometric data but would need further psychometric evidence for them to be recommended.

A Systematic Literature Review of Health-related Quality of Life Measures for Women with Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder and Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder

INTRODUCTION

Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD) / Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder (FSIAD) impacts health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of women and their partners, yet existing measures fail to adequately capture relevant concepts (ie, what is essential to measure including symptoms/impacts) important to women with HSDD/FSIAD.

OBJECTIVES

To identify HRQoL tools used to assess women with HSDD/FSIAD, and to evaluate their psychometric properties (ie, reliability, validity, and responsiveness).

METHODS

We conducted searches in PubMed, Embase and PsychINFO from June 5, 1989 to September 30, 2020 for studies in women with HSDD/FSIAD and psychometric analyses (English only). Principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments Risk of Bias Checklist and other psychometric criteria were applied. Based on this search, 56 papers were evaluated including 15 randomized-controlled trials, 11 observational/single arm/open label studies, and 30 psychometric studies.

RESULTS

Of the 18 measures identified, the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised (FSDS-R) were included in most studies (> 50%). General HRQoL instruments were not used in any of the clinical trials; the SF-12, SF-36 and EQ-5D-5L were reported in two observational studies. No instruments achieved positive quality ratings across all psychometric criteria. The FSFI, FSDS-R, Sexual Event Diary (SED) and the Sexual Desire Relationship Distress Scale (SDRDS), were the only measures to receive a positive rating for content validity.

CONCLUSION

Reliable and valid HRQoL measures that include sexual desire and distress are needed to provide a more systematic and comprehensive assessment of HRQoL and treatment benefits in women with HSDD/FSIAD. While inferences about HRQoL are limited due to the lack of uniformity in concepts assessed and limited psychometric evaluation of these measures in women with HSDD/FSIAD, opportunities exist for the development of reliable and validated tools that comprehensively measure the most relevant and important concepts in women with HSDD/FSIAD. Lim-Watson MZ, Hays RD, Kingsberg S, et al. A systematic literature review of health-related quality of life measures for women with Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder and Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder. Sex Med Rev 2021;XX:XXX-XXX.

Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Diabetes: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The 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.

OBJECTIVE

Our 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.

METHODS

This 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.

RESULTS

A 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.

CONCLUSIONS

This 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 REGISTRATION

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020180978; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020180978.

Evaluating collaborative practice within community-based integrated health and social care teams: a systematic review of outcome measurement instruments

Collaborative practice is a workforce priority for integrated health and social care systems internationally, requiring robust outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) to enable team development and good quality research. In this systematic review, we appraised self-administered OMIs that could be used to measure team-based collaborative practice within integrated health and social care teams in community settings. The most important measurement properties when selecting between OMIs are content and structural validity and internal consistency. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) systematic review method was modified to evaluate each OMI. For each measurement property, the methodological quality of individual studies and quality of each parameter were rated, and the level of evidence graded. A search strategy applied to 19 bibliographic databases identified 7 instruments that met eligibility criteria. A total of 6 development studies, 6 content validity studies, 8 studies for structural validity, and 10 for internal consistency were included. Only the shortened version of the Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale (ATICS-II) was rated as Sufficient for each measurement property with Very Low or Moderate quality evidence. Further validation of each OMI for use by community integrated teams is needed; studies evaluating relevance, comprehensibility and comprehensiveness are a priority.

Health-related quality of life after gastric cancer treatment in Brazil: Narrative review and reflections

In Brazil, gastric cancer is the third most common type of cancer among men and fifth among women, with an estimated 13360 new cases among men and 7870 among women each year during the 2020-2022 period. This study presents reflections and attempts to add knowledge to the theme of quality of life (QoL) in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma and describes some of its characteristics in three regions of Brazil, with an evaluation of the disease’s impacts in various dimensions of life, as reported by the patients themselves. We performed a narrative review of the literature and a data analysis of studies on QoL in Brazilian patients treated for gastric adenocarcinoma from three different cities in three geographic regions: Brasília (the midwest), Jaú (the southeast), and Macapá (the north).

The suitability of patient-reported outcome measures used to assess the impact of hypoglycaemia on quality of life in people with diabetes: a systematic review using COSMIN methods

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

It is generally accepted that hypoglycaemia can negatively impact the quality of life (QoL) of people living with diabetes. However, the suitability of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess this impact is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to identify PROMs used to assess the impact of hypoglycaemia on QoL and examine their quality and psychometric properties.

METHODS

Systematic searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library databases) were undertaken to identify published articles reporting on the development or validation of hypoglycaemia-specific PROMs used to assess the impact of hypoglycaemia on QoL (or domains of QoL) in adults with diabetes. A protocol was developed and registered with PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42019125153). Studies were assessed for inclusion at title/abstract stage by one reviewer. Full-text articles were scrutinised where considered relevant or potentially relevant or where doubt existed. Twenty per cent of articles were assessed by a second reviewer. PROMS were evaluated, according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines, and data were extracted independently by two reviewers against COSMIN criteria. Assessment of each PROM's content validity included reviewer ratings (N = 16) of relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility: by researchers (n = 6); clinicians (n = 6); and adults with diabetes (n = 4).

RESULTS

Of the 214 PROMs used to assess the impact of hypoglycaemia on QoL (or domains of QoL), seven hypoglycaemia-specific PROMS were identified and subjected to full evaluation: the Fear of Hypoglycemia 15-item scale; the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey; the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey version II; the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-II short-form; the Hypoglycemic Attitudes and Behavior Scale; the Hypoglycemic Confidence Scale; and the QoLHYPO questionnaire. Content validity was rated as 'inconsistent', with most as '(very) low' quality, while structural validity was deemed 'unsatisfactory'. Other measurement properties (e.g. reliability) varied, and evidence gaps were apparent across all PROMs. None of the identified studies addressed cross-cultural validity or measurement error. Criterion validity and responsiveness were not assessed due to the lack of a 'gold standard' measure of the impact of hypoglycaemia on QoL against which to compare the PROMS.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

None of the hypoglycaemia-specific PROMs identified had sufficient evidence to demonstrate satisfactory validity, reliability and responsiveness. All were limited in terms of content and structural validity, which restricts their utility for assessing the impact of hypoglycaemia on QoL in the clinic or research setting. Further research is needed to address the content validity of existing PROMs, or the development of new PROM(s), for the purpose of assessing the impact of hypoglycaemia on QoL.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42019125153.

COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures

PURPOSE

To develop a set of consensus and empirically based reporting recommendations for primary studies of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

This study included four phases: 1. Conducting an extensive literature review of recommendations for reporting of studies testing measurement properties of PROMs; 2. Preparing for the Delphi study by identifying experts; 3. Conducting three Delphi rounds aiming for consensus on the item list of recommendations found in phase 1; 4. Developing the COSMIN reporting guideline and user manual.

RESULTS

The literature review resulted in 93 reporting items, included in the first Delphi round. A total of 84 individuals (from 12 countries) agreed to participate in the Delphi study, with 47, 30 and 25 responding in rounds one, two and three, respectively. After three rounds, we achieved consensus on a set of 71 items separated into a set of 35 "common" items (relevant to all studies on measurement properties) and 41 "specific" items (exclusively relevant to one of the nine measurement properties).

CONCLUSION

Consensus was achieved on a set of 71 items for inclusion in a reporting guideline for studies on measurement properties of PROMs. These items will guide researchers on the necessary information to include in their reports of investigations of measurement properties of PROMs. This guideline will likely improve the completeness of reporting of these important studies.

Instruments measuring the quality of life among people living with type 2 diabetes mellitus in India: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes mellitus affects an individual's quality of life (QoL); and there are multiple instruments that can be used to measure QoL. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify the existing instruments that have been used to measure QoL in people living with diabetes, and to enlist the major domains (such as physical and psychological components) available in the identified instruments. Additionally, we plan to determine the psychometric properties of the identified QoL instruments using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol guideline was followed to report this systematic review protocol. Searches will be conducted on MEDLINE (via PubMed, Web of Science), SCOPUS and CINAHL. Predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria will be applied to the search results, to include studies with adult individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus, with and without complications, and exclude studies with type 1 diabetes or other clinical illness. Studies conducted outside India will be excluded. Five authors in pairs will independently screen the articles and extract the data that meets the inclusion criteria. The COSMIN criteria will be used to assess the risk of bias of included studies. Narrative synthesis will be performed to analyse the findings of the instruments.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical permission is not applicable, as this is a systematic review. We intend to disseminate the systematic review findings through a national or international conference and publish the findings in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020180432.

Dental patient reported outcome and oral health-related quality of life measures: protocol for a systematic evidence map of reviews

AIMS

This research synthesis protocol addresses the question: what is the evidence concerning measurement properties of dental patient reported outcome measures (dPROMs), and regarding the real-world value of dPROMs, and where are the gaps in this evidence? Evidence mapping will systematically examine reviews of quantitative dPROMs used to assess the impact of oral health on the quality of life of dental patients and research participants. Evidence gaps where future research or systematic reviews are required will be identified.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This protocol accords with the PRISMA-P guideline. Open Science Framework Registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RZD3N . Biomedical and grey literature databases will be searched, adapting the same search strategy. Published or unpublished reviews evaluating any dPROM will be considered for inclusion. There will be no restriction by date, setting, or language. AMSTAR2 and ROBIS will evaluate risk of bias. Psychometric criteria will be adapted from COSMIN. Data will be summarised separately for specific populations and conditions.

DISCUSSION

The findings will enable clinicians and researchers to identify methodologically robust dPROMs, appropriate for use with relevant populations and conditions. Implications for real-world practice and research will be discussed.

Measurement Properties of Existing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures on Medication Adherence: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Medication adherence is essential for improving the health outcomes of patients. Various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed to measure medication adherence in patients. However, no study has summarized the psychometric properties of these PROMs to guide selection for use in clinical practice or research.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the quality of the PROMs used to measure medication adherence.

METHODS

This study was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Relevant articles were retrieved from the EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases. The PROMs were then evaluated based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 121 unique medication adherence PROMs from 214 studies were identified. Hypotheses testing for construct validity and internal consistency were the most frequently assessed measurement properties. PROMs with at least a moderate level of evidence for ≥5 measurement properties include the Adherence Starts with Knowledge 20, Compliance Questionnaire-Rheumatology, General Medication Adherence Scale, Hill-Bone Scale, Immunosuppressant Therapy Barrier Scale, Medication Adherence Reasons Scale (MAR-Scale) revised, 5-item Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS-5), 9-item MARS (MARS-9), 4-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-4), 8-item MMAS (MMAS-8), Self-efficacy for Appropriate Medication Adherence Scale, Satisfaction with Iron Chelation Therapy, Test of Adherence to Inhalers, and questionnaire by Voils. The MAR-Scale revised, MMAS-4, and MMAS-8 have been administered electronically.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified 121 PROMs for medication adherence and provided synthesized evidence for the measurement properties of these PROMs. The findings from this study may assist clinicians and researchers in selecting suitable PROMs to assess medication adherence.

Development of an Item Bank to Measure Medication Adherence: Systematic Review

Background

Medication adherence is important in managing the progression of chronic diseases. A promising approach to reduce cognitive burden when measuring medication adherence lies in the use of computer‐adaptive tests (CATs) or in the development of shorter patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, the lack of an item bank currently hampers this progress.

Objective

We aim to develop an item bank to measure general medication adherence.

Methods

Using the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA), articles published before October 2019 were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Items from existing PROMs were classified and selected (“binned” and “winnowed”) according to standards published by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Cooperative Group.

Results

A total of 126 unique PROMs were identified from 213 studies in 48 countries. Items from the literature review (47 PROMs with 579 items for which permission has been obtained) underwent binning and winnowing. This resulted in 421 candidate items (77 extent of adherence and 344 reasons for adherence).

Conclusions

We developed an item bank for measuring general medication adherence using items from validated PROMs. This will allow researchers to create new PROMs from selected items and provide the foundation to develop CATs.

Tools to assess the measurement properties of quality of life instruments: a meta-review

OBJECTIVE

This meta-review aims to discuss the methodological, research and practical applications of tools that assess the measurement properties of instruments evaluating health-related quality of life (HRQoL) that have been reported in systematic reviews.

DESIGN

Meta-review.

METHODS

Electronic search from January 2008 to May 2020 was carried out on PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, WoS, Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) database, Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

RESULTS

A total of 246 systematic reviews were assessed. Concerning the quality of the review process, some methodological shortcomings were found, such as poor compliance with reporting or methodological guidelines. Regarding the procedures to assess the quality of measurement properties, 164 (66.6%) of reviewers applied one tool at least. Tool format and structure differed across standards or scientific traditions (ie, psychology, medicine and economics), but most assess both measurement properties and the usability of instruments. As far as the results and conclusions of systematic reviews are concerned, only 68 (27.5%) linked the intended use of the instrument to specific measurement properties (eg, evaluative use to responsiveness).

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting and methodological quality of reviews have increased over time, but there is still room for improvement regarding adherence to guidelines. The COSMIN would be the most widespread and comprehensive tool to assess both the risk of bias of primary studies, and the measurement properties of HRQoL instruments for evaluative purposes. Our analysis of other assessment tools and measurement standards can serve as a starting point for future lines of work on the COSMIN tool, such as considering a more comprehensive evaluation of feasibility, including burden and fairness; expanding its scope for measurement instruments with a different use than evaluative; and improving its assessment of the risk of bias of primary studies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017065232.

Measuring quality of life in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a systematic review of the content and structural validity of commonly used instruments

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is an inherited X-linked neuromuscular disorder. A number of questionnaires are available to assess quality of life in DMD, but there are concerns about their validity. This systematic review aimed to appraise critically the content and structural validity of quality of life instruments for DMD. Five databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library) were searched, with supplementary searches in Google Scholar. We included articles with evidence on the content and/or structural validity of quality of life instruments in DMD, and/or instrument development. Evidence was evaluated against the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. Fifty five articles featured a questionnaire assessing quality of life in DMD. Forty instruments were extracted and 26 underwent assessment. Forty-one articles contained evidence on content or structural validity (including 37 development papers). Most instruments demonstrated low quality evidence and unsatisfactory or inconsistent validity in DMD, with the majority not featuring direct validation studies in this population. Only KIDSCREEN received an adequate rating for instrument design and a satisfactory result for content validity based on its development, yet, like the majority of PROMs, the measure has not been directly validated for use in DMD. Further research is needed on the validity of quality of life instruments in DMD, including content and structural validity studies in this population.

Assessing participation of children with acquired brain injury and cerebral palsy: a systematic review of measurement properties

AIM

To examine which instruments used to assess participation of children with acquired brain injury (ABI) or cerebral palsy (CP) align with attendance and/or involvement constructs of participation; and to systematically review measurement properties of these instruments in children with ABI or CP, to guide instrument selection.

METHOD

Five databases were searched. Instruments that quantified 'attendance' and/or 'involvement' aspects of participation according to the family of participation-related constructs were selected. Data on measurement properties were extracted and methodological quality of the studies assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven instruments were used to assess participation in children with ABI or CP. Of those, 12 measured attendance and/or involvement. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of eight of these instruments were examined in 14 studies with children with ABI or CP. Sufficient measurement properties were reported for most of the measures, but no instrument had been assessed on all relevant properties. Moreover, most psychometric studies have marked methodological limitations.

INTERPRETATION

Instruments to assess participation of children with ABI or CP should be selected carefully, as many available measures do not align with attendance and/or involvement. Evidence for measurement properties is limited, mainly caused by low methodological study quality. Future studies should follow recommended methodological guidelines.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

Twelve instruments used to assess participation of children with acquired brain injury (ABI) or cerebral palsy (CP) aligned with attendance/involvement. Seven instruments have some psychometric evidence supporting their use with children with CP. For children with ABI, only the Child and Adolescent Scale of Participation has shown preliminary evidence of measurement properties.

A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures

OBJECTIVES

To identify patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), assess their validity and reliability, and assess any bias in the study design of PREM validity and reliability testing.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

Articles reporting on PREM development and testing sourced from MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus databases up to March 13, 2018.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Critical appraisal of PREM study design was undertaken using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS). Critical appraisal of PREM validity and reliability was undertaken using a revised version of the COSMIN checklist.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Eighty-eight PREMs were identified, spanning across four main health care contexts. PREM validity and reliability was supported by appropriate study designs. Internal consistency (n = 58, 65.2 percent), structural validity (n = 49, 55.1 percent), and content validity (n = 34, 38.2 percent) were the most frequently reported validity and reliability tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful consideration should be given when selecting PREMs, particularly as seven of the 10 validity and reliability criteria were not undertaken in ≥50 percent of the PREMs. Testing PREM responsiveness should be prioritized for the application of PREMs where the end user is measuring change over time. Assessing measurement error/agreement of PREMs is important to understand the clinical relevancy of PREM scores used in a health care evaluation capacity.

Quality of life as a fundamental outcome after curative intent gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma: lessons learned from patients

Background

Gastric cancer has an important epidemiologic impact, and the main curative therapeutic modality for gastric cancer is surgical resection. However, even curative intent therapy can have negative effects on the quality of life (QoL) of these patients, which is undesirable; thus, it is difficult to balance the standardized treatment reported in the literature and treatment response to achieve full patient satisfaction. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the QoL and identify the association of scores on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Gastric (FACT-Ga) and Short Form 36 Health Survey version 2 (SF36v2) questionnaires with sociodemographic, clinical and anatomopathological aspects of gastric adenocarcinoma patients undergoing curative surgery.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study involving 104 patients from three regions of Brazil. Inferential analyses were used to compare (multiple regression and Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis tests) the relationships between these scores and variables (Spearman's coefficient).

Results

In the multiple regression analysis, we found correlations between Helicobacter pylori status and physical well-being (PWB) (P=0.026), between gender and emotional well-being (EWB) (P=0.008), between Lauren's histology and physical functioning (P=0.009), as well as the Short Form 36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2) role-physical (P=0.027), between the tumor site and EWB (P=0.038), between the SF-36v2 mental health and N (the lower the staging, the better the score, P=0.006) and between the SF-36v2 mental health and lymph nodes removed (P=0.029). According to the Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis test, women had worse FACT-Ga total (P=0.049), PWB (P=0.005), EWB (P=0.007), gastric cancer subscale (GaCS, P=0.011), trial outcome index (TOI, P=0.030) and mental health scores than men (P=0.011). Patients with distal tumors had better scores (FACT-Ga, P=0.018; GaCS, P=0.014; TOI, P=0.020) than patients with proximal tumors. Patients with tumors located in the cardia had better physical functioning than those with proximal tumors (P=0.042). Patients who underwent partial gastrectomy had better FACT-Ga total scores (P=0.011), PWB (P=0.033), GaCS scores (P=0.006) and TOI scores (P=0.008) than those who underwent total gastrectomy. Patients who did not receive adjuvant therapy had worse bodily pain as reported on the SF-36v2 than those who received therapy (P=0.048). According to Spearman's coefficient, a higher lymph node stage corresponded to worse FACT-Ga total (s=-0.200, P=0.034), GaCS (s=-0.206, P=0.037), TOI (s=-0.216; P=0.028) and vitality (s=-0.215, P=0.029) scores. A longer time after treatment corresponded to a better SF-36v2 role-physical domain score (s=0.223; P=0.023).

Conclusions

The type of treatment instituted, postoperative time and sociodemographic and anatomopathological factors influence the QoL.

How Does the Built Environment in Compact Metropolitan Cities Affect Health? A Systematic Review of Korean Studies

This systematic review aimed to examine the associations between health-related outcomes and the built environment (BE) characteristics of compact metropolitan cities in Korea using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework. Searching the three Korean academic databases and PubMed, two independent reviewers identified 27 empirical articles published between 2011 and 2016. Data extracted for review included the study characteristics, the variables and measurement methods related to the BE and health-related outcomes, and the findings on the associations between the BE characteristics and health-related outcomes. Vote counting was used to assess the consistency of associations and the direction of associations between the BE characteristics and health-related outcomes. All of the reviewed studies used cross-sectional designs. The objective BE qualities were commonly examined. The BE characteristics associated with health-related outcomes in the reviewed articles included land use, street environment, transportation infrastructure, green and open spaces, and neighborhood facilities. Street environment, transportation infrastructure, and green and open spaces had consistent positive associations with physical health. Mixed land use and neighborhood facilities, however, had inconsistent associations with physical health. Generally, insufficient findings were reported in the association between the BE characteristics and mental and social health. The accessibility of the BE in a compact urban environment was the prominent attribute related to health promotion, health challenges, and health equity. An international comparative analysis of compact cities with different urban contexts and scale is required. Interdisciplinary urban health strategies are recommended based on the associations between the BE characteristics and health-related outcomes.

Performance properties of health-related measurement instruments in whiplash: systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Whiplash is a common traumatic cervical injury which is most often a consequence of rear-end motor vehicle accidents. It has been estimated that up to 50% of the whiplash patients suffer from chronic symptoms, resulting in extensive individual and societal burden. Several measurement instruments are used for initial assessment of whiplash and evaluation of response to treatment. However, a comprehensive assessment of the performance of these measures is lacking. Furthermore, there is no consensus on the most relevant outcome domains and their corresponding measurement instruments of choice. This systematic review aims to identify, describe, and critically appraise the performance properties of health-related measurement instruments in whiplash population.

METHODS

The following literature databases will be searched from their date of establishment: PubMed, Embase®, MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, PsycINFO, and HAPI. All original articles evaluating the reliability, validity, responsiveness, and feasibility of health-related measurement instruments in whiplash will be included, without additional restriction on their intended use, source of data, and structure. Risk of bias will be assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Findings of the studies will be judged against the criteria for good measurement properties, and results from all studies will be qualitatively summarized to generate an overall quality of findings. Overall quality of evidence will be determined using a modified GRADE approach, which will be used in conjunction with the overall quality of results for generation of recommendations. Two reviewers will perform all steps of the review independently. Discrepancies will be discussed between the reviewers, and in case of remaining disagreement, the senior reviewer will make the final decision.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review will summarize the body of literature on health-related measurement instruments in whiplash, aiming to facilitate the selection of high-quality measurement instrument for researchers and physicians. Findings of this study will guide the ongoing efforts for development of a core outcome set.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO reference number CRD42018070901.

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

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40271-018-0328-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Quality of life in persons with hearing loss: a study of patients referred to an audiological service

Objective: To investigate the relationship between hearing loss (HL) and general quality of life (QoL) in adults seeking hearing aids (HAs). Design: The patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire's general part and a questionnaire measuring self-assessed communication ability (Abbreviated Profile of hearing Aid Benefit-APHAB). These responses were compared with EORTC scores from a general population and patients with former head and neck cancer. Study sample: One-hundred and fifty-eight adults with HL were recruited prior to hearing aid (HA) fitting with one half seeking renewal of their HA. Results: General QoL scores among patients with HL were similar to those in the general population, but higher than in many chronic serious diseases. Patients with unilateral HL reported slightly worse social function and more fatigue than patients with bilateral HL. Self-assessed communication ability correlated with general QoL scores. Also, we found that best ear pure tone average (PTA), cognitive and physical QoL function predicted APHAB scores. Conclusion: In the investigated HL group, general QoL scores seem to be relatively close to those seen in the general population.

Psychometric Properties of Parent-Child (0-5 years) Interaction Outcome Measures as Used in Randomized Controlled Trials of Parent Programs: A Systematic Review

This systematic review sought to identify observational measures of parent-child interactions commonly implemented in parenting program research, and to assess the level of psychometric evidence available for their use with this age group. Two separate searches of the same databases were conducted; firstly, to identify eligible instruments, and secondly to identify studies reporting on the psychometric properties of the identified measures. Five commercial platforms hosting 19 electronic databases were searched from their inception to conducted search dates. Fourteen measures were identified from Search 1; a systematic search of randomized controlled trial evaluations of parenting programs. For Search 2, inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied to 1327 retrieved papers that described the development and/or validation of the 14 measures identified in Search 1. Seventeen articles met the inclusion criteria, resulting in five observational measures for the final review. Data were extracted and synthesized using the COSMIN rating system to describe the methodological quality of each article alongside the overall quality rating of the psychometric property reported for each measure using the Terwee checklist. Measure reliability was categorized into four domains (internal consistency, test-re-test, inter-rater, and intra-rater). Measure validity was categorized into four domains (content, structural, convergent/divergent, and discriminant). Results indicated that the majority of psychometric evidence related to children aged from birth the three with internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and structural validity the most commonly reported properties, although this evidence was often weak. The findings suggest further validation of the included measures is required to establish acceptability for the whole target age group.