Tools for assessing the quality of life of hysterectomized women: A systematic review

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Mahdiye Taheri, Masoumeh Simbar, Abbas Ebadi, Mahrokh Dolatian
{"title":"Tools for assessing the quality of life of hysterectomized women: A systematic review","authors":"Mahdiye Taheri, Masoumeh Simbar, Abbas Ebadi, Mahrokh Dolatian","doi":"10.1111/jep.14137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims and ObjectivesSince hysterectomy surgery is a major and invasive procedure, it can affect the quality of life of women in many ways. This study aimed to review and critique the psychometric properties of tools used to measure the quality of life of hysterectomized women.MethodAn advanced search was conducted in international (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, Embase) as well as national databases (SID and Magiran) to retrieve articles published from 2000 to 2024, using keywords related to hysterectomy and quality of life. Then, the psychometric properties of the tools found in these articles were evaluated by COSMIN checklist.ResultsThe psychometric properties of tools were analyzed using the COSMIN checklist. Among the 20 general and specific tools examined, content validity had not been evaluated in 15 tools, construct validity had not been evaluated in four tools, criterion validity had not been evaluated in eight tools, internal consistency had not been evaluated in five tools, responsiveness had not been evaluated in 16 tools, and interpretability had not been assessed in 18 tools, and measurement error had not been evaluated in any of the tools.ConclusionThe results showed that none of the evaluated tools have all the criteria of Cosmin's checklist. Of course, construct validity and reliability had been assessed in most of the tools. Meanwhile, there was no tool to measure the quality of life of hysterectomized women specifically. Therefore, it seems that developing a tool with acceptable psychometric properties is necessary to measure the quality of life of hysterectomized women specifically.","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14137","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims and ObjectivesSince hysterectomy surgery is a major and invasive procedure, it can affect the quality of life of women in many ways. This study aimed to review and critique the psychometric properties of tools used to measure the quality of life of hysterectomized women.MethodAn advanced search was conducted in international (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, Embase) as well as national databases (SID and Magiran) to retrieve articles published from 2000 to 2024, using keywords related to hysterectomy and quality of life. Then, the psychometric properties of the tools found in these articles were evaluated by COSMIN checklist.ResultsThe psychometric properties of tools were analyzed using the COSMIN checklist. Among the 20 general and specific tools examined, content validity had not been evaluated in 15 tools, construct validity had not been evaluated in four tools, criterion validity had not been evaluated in eight tools, internal consistency had not been evaluated in five tools, responsiveness had not been evaluated in 16 tools, and interpretability had not been assessed in 18 tools, and measurement error had not been evaluated in any of the tools.ConclusionThe results showed that none of the evaluated tools have all the criteria of Cosmin's checklist. Of course, construct validity and reliability had been assessed in most of the tools. Meanwhile, there was no tool to measure the quality of life of hysterectomized women specifically. Therefore, it seems that developing a tool with acceptable psychometric properties is necessary to measure the quality of life of hysterectomized women specifically.
评估子宫切除妇女生活质量的工具:系统回顾
目的和目标由于子宫切除手术是一项重大的侵入性手术,因此会在很多方面影响妇女的生活质量。本研究旨在对用于测量子宫切除术妇女生活质量的工具的心理测量特性进行回顾和评论。方法在国际数据库(PubMed、Web of Science、Scopus、PsycINFO、Embase)和国内数据库(SID 和 Magiran)中进行高级检索,使用与子宫切除术和生活质量相关的关键词检索 2000 年至 2024 年期间发表的文章。然后,通过 COSMIN 检查表对这些文章中发现的工具的心理测量特性进行了评估。结果使用 COSMIN 检查表对工具的心理测量特性进行了分析。在所研究的 20 种一般和特殊工具中,15 种工具未对内容效度进行评估,4 种工具未对建构效度进行评估,8 种工具未对标准效度进行评估,5 种工具未对内部一致性进行评估,16 种工具未对响应性进行评估,18 种工具未对可解释性进行评估,所有工具均未对测量误差进行评估。当然,大多数工具的构建有效性和可靠性都得到了评估。同时,还没有专门用于测量子宫切除妇女生活质量的工具。因此,看来有必要开发一种具有可接受的心理测量特性的工具,以专门测量子宫切除妇女的生活质量。
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
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
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