A Review of Reviews of Patient-Reported Measures in Psychosis: Need to Consider Factors Affecting Equity and the Involvement of Patients.

IF 2
Schizophrenia bulletin open Pub Date : 2025-01-11 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/schizbullopen/sgae032
Neha Nair, Maria Abou Farhat, Navdeep Kaur, Nev Jones, Greeshma Mohan, Jill Boruff, Srividya N Iyer
{"title":"A Review of Reviews of Patient-Reported Measures in Psychosis: Need to Consider Factors Affecting Equity and the Involvement of Patients.","authors":"Neha Nair, Maria Abou Farhat, Navdeep Kaur, Nev Jones, Greeshma Mohan, Jill Boruff, Srividya N Iyer","doi":"10.1093/schizbullopen/sgae032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-reported measures are increasingly valued in psychosis care and research. For patient-reported measures to reflect patient perspectives, patients must be involved in developing them. Furthermore, their development and evaluation must consider sociodemographic characteristics influencing patient experiences and outcomes and measurement. As reviews reflect the state of the field and guide clinicians/researchers in selecting measures, our aim was to evaluate literature reviews of patient-reported measures on their consideration of factors affecting equity and patient involvement.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>For this review of reviews, we searched 3 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO) for reviews on patient-reported measures in psychosis. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, and descriptively synthesized and appraised the quality of included reviews. Using Cochrane's PROGRESS-Plus and a Canadian equity framework, reviews were evaluated on their consideration of sociodemographic characteristics, accessibility, and patient involvement.</p><p><strong>Study results: </strong>Of 10 reviews (6 systematic, 4 nonsystematic; 1111 studies; 313 measures), 6 limited their search to English. Barring 2 reviews that reported the age, gender, and countries of samples in included studies, the reviews did not extract/comment on population/sociodemographic characteristics. One commented on one measure's readability; none commented on the samples' literacy levels. Four reviews considered the availability of translations; only 1 evaluated cross-cultural validity. Only 2 considered the costs of measures. Only 1 evaluated patient involvement in developing patient-reported measures. One referenced equity frameworks/standards.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Reviews of patient-reported measures in psychosis demonstrate minimal attention to equity and patient involvement. We offer recommendations to strengthen patient-reported measures research by attending to equity, social determinants, and patient-centrism.</p>","PeriodicalId":94380,"journal":{"name":"Schizophrenia bulletin open","volume":"6 1","pages":"sgae032"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11920872/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schizophrenia bulletin open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/schizbullopen/sgae032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported measures are increasingly valued in psychosis care and research. For patient-reported measures to reflect patient perspectives, patients must be involved in developing them. Furthermore, their development and evaluation must consider sociodemographic characteristics influencing patient experiences and outcomes and measurement. As reviews reflect the state of the field and guide clinicians/researchers in selecting measures, our aim was to evaluate literature reviews of patient-reported measures on their consideration of factors affecting equity and patient involvement.

Study design: For this review of reviews, we searched 3 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO) for reviews on patient-reported measures in psychosis. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, and descriptively synthesized and appraised the quality of included reviews. Using Cochrane's PROGRESS-Plus and a Canadian equity framework, reviews were evaluated on their consideration of sociodemographic characteristics, accessibility, and patient involvement.

Study results: Of 10 reviews (6 systematic, 4 nonsystematic; 1111 studies; 313 measures), 6 limited their search to English. Barring 2 reviews that reported the age, gender, and countries of samples in included studies, the reviews did not extract/comment on population/sociodemographic characteristics. One commented on one measure's readability; none commented on the samples' literacy levels. Four reviews considered the availability of translations; only 1 evaluated cross-cultural validity. Only 2 considered the costs of measures. Only 1 evaluated patient involvement in developing patient-reported measures. One referenced equity frameworks/standards.

Conclusions: Reviews of patient-reported measures in psychosis demonstrate minimal attention to equity and patient involvement. We offer recommendations to strengthen patient-reported measures research by attending to equity, social determinants, and patient-centrism.

Abstract Image

精神病患者报告措施综述:需要考虑影响公平和患者参与的因素。
背景:患者报告措施在精神病护理和研究中越来越受到重视。为了让患者报告的措施反映患者的观点,患者必须参与制定这些措施。此外,它们的发展和评估必须考虑影响患者经验和结果的社会人口特征和测量。由于综述反映了该领域的现状,并指导临床医生/研究人员选择措施,我们的目的是评估患者报告措施的文献综述,以考虑影响公平和患者参与的因素。研究设计:在这篇综述的综述中,我们检索了3个数据库(MEDLINE、Embase和PsycINFO),以获取关于患者报告的精神病治疗措施的综述。两位审稿人独立筛选标题、摘要和全文,并描述性地综合和评价纳入的综述的质量。使用Cochrane的PROGRESS-Plus和加拿大公平框架,评估了他们对社会人口特征、可及性和患者参与的考虑。研究结果:10篇综述(6篇系统综述,4篇非系统综述;1111研究;313项措施),6项限制了他们对英语的搜索。除了2篇综述报道了纳入研究样本的年龄、性别和国家外,这些综述没有提取/评论人口/社会人口学特征。有人评论了一项测量的可读性;没有人评论这些样本的文化水平。四项审查考虑了翻译的可用性;只有1个评估了跨文化效度。只有2个考虑了措施的成本。只有1个评估了患者参与制定患者报告的措施。其中一个提到了公平框架/标准。结论:对精神病患者报告措施的回顾表明,对公平和患者参与的关注很少。我们建议通过关注公平、社会决定因素和以患者为中心来加强患者报告措施的研究。
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
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信