Minjeong Jo, Mihyun Park, Hye-Lyung Hwang, Heejin Chung
{"title":"Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for advance care planning in older people: A COSMIN systematic review.","authors":"Minjeong Jo, Mihyun Park, Hye-Lyung Hwang, Heejin Chung","doi":"10.1017/S1478951524002062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This review provides an overview of patient-reported outcome measure (PROMs) utilized to assess the impact of advance care planning (ACP) among older adults and evaluates their psychometric properties.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies that targeted older adults; (2) studies using of any type of measurement tools that measure patient-reported ACP program outcomes; and (3) studies published in English or Korean. Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted, encompassing electronic searches across 5 databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, and PsycINFO and manual searches of umbrella reviews on ACP interventions. General characteristics of the selected measures were extracted, and their methodological quality was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 19,503 studies initially identified, 74 met the inclusion criteria, reporting on a total of 202 measures. These measures were categorized into 4 domains reflecting the targets of ACP interventions: process (<i>n</i> = 56), action (<i>n</i> = 18), process and action (<i>n</i> = 16), quality of care (<i>n</i> = 63), and health status (<i>n</i> = 49). Despite the breadth of measures identified, none fully met all recommended psychometric properties outlined in the checklist.</p><p><strong>Significance of results: </strong>While this review aids in the selection of measures for both practical and research purposes, it underscores the necessity for further validation of PROMs in assessing ACP outcomes in older adults, advocating for rigorous psychometric evaluations and adherence to standards like the COSMIN checklist to ensure reliable and valid data. It suggests the need for shortened versions and researcher assistance to address the challenges older adults face with self-reported PROMs and improve participation rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":47898,"journal":{"name":"Palliative & Supportive Care","volume":"23 ","pages":"e53"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative & Supportive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951524002062","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: This review provides an overview of patient-reported outcome measure (PROMs) utilized to assess the impact of advance care planning (ACP) among older adults and evaluates their psychometric properties.
Methods: The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies that targeted older adults; (2) studies using of any type of measurement tools that measure patient-reported ACP program outcomes; and (3) studies published in English or Korean. Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted, encompassing electronic searches across 5 databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, and PsycINFO and manual searches of umbrella reviews on ACP interventions. General characteristics of the selected measures were extracted, and their methodological quality was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.
Results: Out of 19,503 studies initially identified, 74 met the inclusion criteria, reporting on a total of 202 measures. These measures were categorized into 4 domains reflecting the targets of ACP interventions: process (n = 56), action (n = 18), process and action (n = 16), quality of care (n = 63), and health status (n = 49). Despite the breadth of measures identified, none fully met all recommended psychometric properties outlined in the checklist.
Significance of results: While this review aids in the selection of measures for both practical and research purposes, it underscores the necessity for further validation of PROMs in assessing ACP outcomes in older adults, advocating for rigorous psychometric evaluations and adherence to standards like the COSMIN checklist to ensure reliable and valid data. It suggests the need for shortened versions and researcher assistance to address the challenges older adults face with self-reported PROMs and improve participation rates.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
