Camille Charvet, Isabelle Boutron, Yannick Morvan, Catherine Le Berre, Suzanne Touboul, Raphaël Gaillard, Eiko Fried, Astrid Chevance
{"title":"How to measure mental pain: a systematic review assessing measures of mental pain.","authors":"Camille Charvet, Isabelle Boutron, Yannick Morvan, Catherine Le Berre, Suzanne Touboul, Raphaël Gaillard, Eiko Fried, Astrid Chevance","doi":"10.1136/ebmental-2021-300350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Question: </strong>Although mental pain is present in many mental disorders and is a predictor of suicide, it is rarely investigated in research or treated in care. A valid tool to measure it is a necessary first step towards better understanding, predicting and ultimately relieving this pain.</p><p><strong>Study selection and analysis: </strong>Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we performed a systematic review to identify all published standardised measures of mental pain. We used qualitative content analysis to evaluate the similarity of each measure, quantified via Jaccard Index scores ranging from no similarity (0) to full similarity (1). Finally, using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology, we evaluated each measure's development (assessing 35 features), its content validity (31 features) and if the latter was rated at least adequate, its other psychometric properties.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We identified 10 self-reported scales of mental pain in 2658 screened studies relying on diverse definitions of this construct. The highest average similarity coefficient for any given measure was 0.24, indicative of weak similarity (individual pairwise coefficients from 0 to 0.5). Little to no information was provided regarding the development and the content validity of all 10 scales. Therefore, their development and content validity were rated 'inadequate' or 'doubtful'.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and clinical implications: </strong>There is not enough evidence of validity to recommend using one measure over others in research or clinical practice. Heterogeneous use of disparate measures across studies limits comparison and combination of their results in meta-analyses. Development by all stakeholders (especially patients) of a consensual patient-reported measure for mental pain is needed.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42021242679.</p>","PeriodicalId":12233,"journal":{"name":"Evidence Based Mental Health","volume":"25 4","pages":"e4"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10231614/pdf/ebmental-2021-300350.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence Based Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2021-300350","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Question: Although mental pain is present in many mental disorders and is a predictor of suicide, it is rarely investigated in research or treated in care. A valid tool to measure it is a necessary first step towards better understanding, predicting and ultimately relieving this pain.
Study selection and analysis: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we performed a systematic review to identify all published standardised measures of mental pain. We used qualitative content analysis to evaluate the similarity of each measure, quantified via Jaccard Index scores ranging from no similarity (0) to full similarity (1). Finally, using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology, we evaluated each measure's development (assessing 35 features), its content validity (31 features) and if the latter was rated at least adequate, its other psychometric properties.
Findings: We identified 10 self-reported scales of mental pain in 2658 screened studies relying on diverse definitions of this construct. The highest average similarity coefficient for any given measure was 0.24, indicative of weak similarity (individual pairwise coefficients from 0 to 0.5). Little to no information was provided regarding the development and the content validity of all 10 scales. Therefore, their development and content validity were rated 'inadequate' or 'doubtful'.
Conclusions and clinical implications: There is not enough evidence of validity to recommend using one measure over others in research or clinical practice. Heterogeneous use of disparate measures across studies limits comparison and combination of their results in meta-analyses. Development by all stakeholders (especially patients) of a consensual patient-reported measure for mental pain is needed.
期刊介绍：
Evidence-Based Mental Health alerts clinicians to important advances in treatment, diagnosis, aetiology, prognosis, continuing education, economic evaluation and qualitative research in mental health. Published by the British Psychological Society, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the BMJ Publishing Group the journal surveys a wide range of international medical journals applying strict criteria for the quality and validity of research. Clinicians assess the relevance of the best studies and the key details of these essential studies are presented in a succinct, informative abstract with an expert commentary on its clinical application.Evidence-Based Mental Health is a multidisciplinary, quarterly publication.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
