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

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":0.0000,"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.

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:481959085
Book学术官方微信