Application of the PAPERS Grading Criteria Within a Rapid Evidence Review to Determine the Psychometric and Pragmatic Properties of Patient Empowerment Tools.

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Patient Experience Pub Date : 2024-08-21 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23743735241272191
Katherine E Woolley, Nia J Jones, Ayesha Rahim, Kathleen L Withers, Robert Letchford
{"title":"Application of the PAPERS Grading Criteria Within a Rapid Evidence Review to Determine the Psychometric and Pragmatic Properties of Patient Empowerment Tools.","authors":"Katherine E Woolley, Nia J Jones, Ayesha Rahim, Kathleen L Withers, Robert Letchford","doi":"10.1177/23743735241272191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Self-management of long-term conditions requires health professionals to understand and develop capabilities that empower the population they serve. A rapid evidence review was undertaken to assess the current evidence based on the psychometric properties of patient empowerment tools. MEDLINE was searched, and data were extracted for each publication and scored using a modified Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS) evidence rating scale. The results were grouped into the following domains: (a) health literacy; (b) patient activation; (c) long-term conditions; (d) self-management needs and behaviors. A full-text review of 65 publications led to the inclusion of 29 primary studies. The highest scoring tools were selected with respect to performance for each domain: (a) Newest Vital Sign and the Brief Health Literacy Screen; (b) Consumer Health Activation Index and PAM-13; (c) LTCQ and LTCQ8; and (d) SEMCD and Patient Enablement Instrument. PAPERS was a useful tool in determining the generalizability, validity, and reliability of these patient empowerment tools. However, further research is required to establish whether an individual's health literacy status influences patient empowerment tool outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":45073,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Experience","volume":"11 ","pages":"23743735241272191"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11339745/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Experience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23743735241272191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Self-management of long-term conditions requires health professionals to understand and develop capabilities that empower the population they serve. A rapid evidence review was undertaken to assess the current evidence based on the psychometric properties of patient empowerment tools. MEDLINE was searched, and data were extracted for each publication and scored using a modified Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS) evidence rating scale. The results were grouped into the following domains: (a) health literacy; (b) patient activation; (c) long-term conditions; (d) self-management needs and behaviors. A full-text review of 65 publications led to the inclusion of 29 primary studies. The highest scoring tools were selected with respect to performance for each domain: (a) Newest Vital Sign and the Brief Health Literacy Screen; (b) Consumer Health Activation Index and PAM-13; (c) LTCQ and LTCQ8; and (d) SEMCD and Patient Enablement Instrument. PAPERS was a useful tool in determining the generalizability, validity, and reliability of these patient empowerment tools. However, further research is required to establish whether an individual's health literacy status influences patient empowerment tool outcomes.

在快速证据审查中应用 PAPERS 分级标准,以确定患者赋权工具的心理测量和实用特性。
对长期病症的自我管理要求医疗专业人员了解并开发出能够增强所服务人群能力的工具。我们进行了一次快速证据审查,以评估基于患者赋权工具心理测量特性的现有证据。我们检索了MEDLINE,提取了每篇出版物的数据,并使用修改后的心理测量和实用证据评级表(PAPERS)证据评级表进行评分。研究结果按以下领域分组:(a) 健康知识;(b) 患者激活;(c) 长期病症;(d) 自我管理需求和行为。对 65 篇出版物进行全文审查后,纳入了 29 项主要研究。根据每个领域的表现,选出了得分最高的工具:(a) 最新生命体征和简明健康素养筛查;(b) 消费者健康激活指数和 PAM-13;(c) LTCQ 和 LTCQ8;(d) SEMCD 和患者能力工具。PAPERS 是确定这些患者赋权工具的普遍性、有效性和可靠性的有用工具。然而,要确定个人的健康素养状况是否会影响患者赋权工具的结果,还需要进一步的研究。
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
Journal of Patient Experience
Journal of Patient Experience HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
178
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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