Practices for Reporting Scale Structure and Summarizing Scores in Studies Using FAMCARE Scale to Assess Caregiver Satisfaction with Cancer Care: A Scoping Review.

IF 1.8 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Patient Related Outcome Measures Pub Date : 2024-11-08 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/PROM.S479195
Kristin Vassbotn Guldhav, John Roger Andersen, Kari Eldal, Tonje Lundeby, Pål Andre Hegland
{"title":"Practices for Reporting Scale Structure and Summarizing Scores in Studies Using FAMCARE Scale to Assess Caregiver Satisfaction with Cancer Care: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Kristin Vassbotn Guldhav, John Roger Andersen, Kari Eldal, Tonje Lundeby, Pål Andre Hegland","doi":"10.2147/PROM.S479195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Satisfaction with care is a concept quantified through diverse measurement tools. However, studies have indicated that measuring satisfaction is challenging due to the construct's multidimensional expression. Thus, obtaining valid results requires careful consideration of the construct's nature and measurement methods.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The primary aim of this study was to examine how studies involving cancer caregivers have addressed the dimensionality of the construct when using satisfaction with care as an outcome, and whether this is reflected in the score reporting practices. We chose to investigate this by conducting a scoping review of the measurement tool Family Satisfaction with End-of-Life Care Scale (FAMCARE Scale), where scores can be reported as the mean of overall score, subscale scores and single-item scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review consisted of systematic searches using Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos. Two researchers used the Rayyan Qatar Computing Research Institute system to perform a blinded screening process. We extracted information on study design, purpose, evaluating of structural validity, variations in the type of scores reported, and justification for choosing the type(s) of scores that were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-three studies were included in the review, and their designs and reporting practices of score type varied substantially. Five studies reported analyses to test the scale's structural validity. Ten studies provided a justification for their choice of reporting method. The most common reporting practice found was using mean of overall scores, present in 20 of the included studies. Twelve studies reported mean of subscale scores, and ten reported single-item mean scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found substantial variability in score reporting practices, highlighting the need for a more in-depth understanding and reflection on the multidimensional nature of caregiver satisfaction.</p>","PeriodicalId":19747,"journal":{"name":"Patient Related Outcome Measures","volume":"15 ","pages":"271-286"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11556242/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient Related Outcome Measures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S479195","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

Background: Satisfaction with care is a concept quantified through diverse measurement tools. However, studies have indicated that measuring satisfaction is challenging due to the construct's multidimensional expression. Thus, obtaining valid results requires careful consideration of the construct's nature and measurement methods.

Purpose: The primary aim of this study was to examine how studies involving cancer caregivers have addressed the dimensionality of the construct when using satisfaction with care as an outcome, and whether this is reflected in the score reporting practices. We chose to investigate this by conducting a scoping review of the measurement tool Family Satisfaction with End-of-Life Care Scale (FAMCARE Scale), where scores can be reported as the mean of overall score, subscale scores and single-item scores.

Methods: This scoping review consisted of systematic searches using Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos. Two researchers used the Rayyan Qatar Computing Research Institute system to perform a blinded screening process. We extracted information on study design, purpose, evaluating of structural validity, variations in the type of scores reported, and justification for choosing the type(s) of scores that were analyzed.

Results: Twenty-three studies were included in the review, and their designs and reporting practices of score type varied substantially. Five studies reported analyses to test the scale's structural validity. Ten studies provided a justification for their choice of reporting method. The most common reporting practice found was using mean of overall scores, present in 20 of the included studies. Twelve studies reported mean of subscale scores, and ten reported single-item mean scores.

Conclusion: We found substantial variability in score reporting practices, highlighting the need for a more in-depth understanding and reflection on the multidimensional nature of caregiver satisfaction.

在使用 FAMCARE 量表评估护理人员对癌症护理满意度的研究中,报告量表结构和总结得分的做法:范围综述》。
背景:护理满意度是一个通过不同测量工具量化的概念。然而,研究表明,由于满意度的多维表现形式,测量满意度具有挑战性。目的:本研究的主要目的是考察涉及癌症护理人员的研究在使用护理满意度作为结果时如何处理该概念的多维性,以及这是否反映在评分报告实践中。我们选择通过对 "临终关怀家庭满意度量表"(FAMCARE Scale)这一测量工具进行范围综述来研究这一问题,该量表的得分可作为总分、分量表得分和单项得分的平均值进行报告:本次范围界定综述包括使用 Medline、CINAHL、Embase、PsycInfo、Cochrane Library 和 Epistemonikos 进行的系统检索。两名研究人员使用 Rayyan Qatar Computing Research Institute 系统进行了盲法筛选。我们提取了有关研究设计、目的、结构有效性评估、报告分数类型的变化以及选择分析分数类型的理由等信息:共有 23 项研究被纳入审查范围,这些研究的设计和报告分数类型的做法存在很大差异。五项研究报告了测试量表结构有效性的分析。有 10 项研究对其选择的报告方法进行了说明。最常见的报告方法是使用总分的平均值,有 20 项研究采用了这种方法。12 项研究报告了子量表得分的平均值,10 项研究报告了单项平均值:我们发现在分数报告方法上存在很大差异,这凸显了对护理人员满意度的多维性进行更深入了解和反思的必要性。
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
Patient Related Outcome Measures
Patient Related Outcome Measures HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
自引率
4.80%
发文量
27
审稿时长
16 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