Patient-reported outcome measures for the assessment of stress in neurological patients: An integrative review

IF 3.1 Q1 NURSING
Ilkka Sairanen , Heli Virtanen , Päivi Hämäläinen , Riitta Suhonen
{"title":"Patient-reported outcome measures for the assessment of stress in neurological patients: An integrative review","authors":"Ilkka Sairanen ,&nbsp;Heli Virtanen ,&nbsp;Päivi Hämäläinen ,&nbsp;Riitta Suhonen","doi":"10.1016/j.ijnsa.2023.100172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Patient stress is often overlooked in the care of patients with neurological problems. Nursing theorists have previously heralded stress assessment through conceptual clarification, while clinical nurses in the health care system hold an ideal position for implementation of assessment and coordination of support. Integrated with a hospital assessment and support scheme, recognition of stress as a target of systematic assessment can lead to improved clinical outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The aim of the study was to describe and compare patient-reported outcome measures suitable for assessment of the stress response as symptoms in neurological patients.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>This study is an integrative review and concept development of patient stress based on qualitative and quantitative analysis of available self-reporting instruments.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Instruments were retreived with a systematic search from PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO and Web of Science reference databases on August 2, 2021. Search terms associated with the concept of stress symptoms were used. Instrument inclusion was done with the guidance of authoritative symptom inventories, with partial confirmation by a second author to mitigate bias. In the analysis, the instruments included in the review were quantitatively described and compared. Insights from the instrument composition led to clarification of our concept of stress response to further refine the list of instruments suitable for self-assessment of the stress status. This study was not registered.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Based on the inclusion criteria, 23 patient-reported outcome measures extending over a variety of stress concepts were included. The similarity of items among the instruments implied a symptom cluster delineated by 59 common symptom subclasses that were grouped together in a re-classification of instrument items. A comparative quantitative analysis prompted us to distinguish the concept of stress response from antecedent, consequent, and related concepts as a manifestation of mental, somatic, and behavioral domains. Ten instruments with items covering the three domains, each with unique qualities regarding number of items, measured spread, and letter count were described.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Within an organizational framework, effective allotment among types of support can be founded on the patient's stress status and the stressors. The stress status manifests itself as a set of measurable symptoms. Optimal instruments for use in systematic clinical assessment of neurological patients’ stress status should satisfy the suggested specification of the stress response with a minimal number of items and concise wording. Finding and including the relevant instruments for analysis were the main limitation of the study.</p></div><div><h3>Tweetable abstract</h3><p>Stress of neurological patients needs to be assessed and addressed. We ranked 10 suitable instruments that can be useful in the assessment.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34476,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances","volume":"6 ","pages":"Article 100172"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666142X23000565/pdfft?md5=b671db9d86cbc47c9503a96f2338acb6&pid=1-s2.0-S2666142X23000565-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666142X23000565","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Patient stress is often overlooked in the care of patients with neurological problems. Nursing theorists have previously heralded stress assessment through conceptual clarification, while clinical nurses in the health care system hold an ideal position for implementation of assessment and coordination of support. Integrated with a hospital assessment and support scheme, recognition of stress as a target of systematic assessment can lead to improved clinical outcomes.

Objective

The aim of the study was to describe and compare patient-reported outcome measures suitable for assessment of the stress response as symptoms in neurological patients.

Design

This study is an integrative review and concept development of patient stress based on qualitative and quantitative analysis of available self-reporting instruments.

Methods

Instruments were retreived with a systematic search from PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO and Web of Science reference databases on August 2, 2021. Search terms associated with the concept of stress symptoms were used. Instrument inclusion was done with the guidance of authoritative symptom inventories, with partial confirmation by a second author to mitigate bias. In the analysis, the instruments included in the review were quantitatively described and compared. Insights from the instrument composition led to clarification of our concept of stress response to further refine the list of instruments suitable for self-assessment of the stress status. This study was not registered.

Results

Based on the inclusion criteria, 23 patient-reported outcome measures extending over a variety of stress concepts were included. The similarity of items among the instruments implied a symptom cluster delineated by 59 common symptom subclasses that were grouped together in a re-classification of instrument items. A comparative quantitative analysis prompted us to distinguish the concept of stress response from antecedent, consequent, and related concepts as a manifestation of mental, somatic, and behavioral domains. Ten instruments with items covering the three domains, each with unique qualities regarding number of items, measured spread, and letter count were described.

Conclusions

Within an organizational framework, effective allotment among types of support can be founded on the patient's stress status and the stressors. The stress status manifests itself as a set of measurable symptoms. Optimal instruments for use in systematic clinical assessment of neurological patients’ stress status should satisfy the suggested specification of the stress response with a minimal number of items and concise wording. Finding and including the relevant instruments for analysis were the main limitation of the study.

Tweetable abstract

Stress of neurological patients needs to be assessed and addressed. We ranked 10 suitable instruments that can be useful in the assessment.

用于评估神经系统患者压力的患者报告结果测量法:综合评述
背景在护理神经系统疾病患者的过程中,患者的压力常常被忽视。护理理论家曾通过澄清概念来预示压力评估,而医疗保健系统中的临床护士则是实施评估和协调支持的理想人选。本研究旨在描述和比较适合评估神经科患者作为症状的应激反应的患者报告结果测量方法。本研究是基于对现有自我报告工具的定性和定量分析,对患者应激反应进行综合回顾和概念发展。使用了与压力症状概念相关的检索词。纳入的工具以权威症状清单为指导,并由第二位作者进行部分确认,以减少偏差。在分析过程中,对纳入综述的工具进行了定量描述和比较。从工具构成中获得的启示使我们澄清了压力反应的概念,从而进一步完善了适用于压力状态自我评估的工具清单。本研究未注册。结果根据纳入标准,共纳入了 23 种患者报告的结果测量方法,涵盖了各种压力概念。这些测量工具的测量项目具有相似性,这意味着在对测量工具的测量项目进行重新分类时,将59个共同的症状子类归为一组。比较定量分析促使我们将应激反应概念与前因、后果和相关概念区分开来,将其视为精神、躯体和行为领域的一种表现形式。结论在一个组织框架内,可以根据患者的应激状态和应激源来有效分配不同类型的支持。压力状态表现为一系列可测量的症状。用于系统性临床评估神经科患者压力状态的最佳工具应满足所建议的压力反应规范,项目数量最少,措辞简洁。寻找并纳入相关工具进行分析是本研究的主要局限性。我们列出了 10 种可用于评估的合适工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
审稿时长
81 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信