Quality indicators in psychological care for patients with serious illness: A systematic review.

IF 2.5 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Takaaki Hasegawa, Toru Okuyama, Ryoichi Sadahiro, Yu Uneno, Yoshiaki Okamoto, Yusuke Kanno, Saho Wada, Shuji Inada, Yuri Igarashi, Hitoshi Tanimukai, Daisuke Fujisawa
{"title":"Quality indicators in psychological care for patients with serious illness: A systematic review.","authors":"Takaaki Hasegawa, Toru Okuyama, Ryoichi Sadahiro, Yu Uneno, Yoshiaki Okamoto, Yusuke Kanno, Saho Wada, Shuji Inada, Yuri Igarashi, Hitoshi Tanimukai, Daisuke Fujisawa","doi":"10.1016/j.jaclp.2025.09.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Psychological care for patients with serious illness is recommended; however, established quality indicators for this care are lacking.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to review clinical quality indicators to evaluate the quality of psychological care for patients with serious illnesses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched six databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. Our review included studies on the development of quality indicators for psychological care in patients with serious illness. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently, and methodological quality was evaluated using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. The study protocol was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000051290).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the identified 2,119 reports, 345 reports were reviewed in detail and 12 studies met the eligibility criteria. From these, 24 quality indicators were identified, some of which overlapped conceptually or in content: 1 structure, 14 process, and 9 outcome indicators. According to the AIRE instrument, most studies satisfied the category 1 criteria (clarity of purpose, relevance, and organizational context); however, formal validation of the developed indicators in practice was rarely conducted.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is an urgent need for a comprehensive set of validated quality indicators to assess the quality of psychological care across multiple components. Increasing the incorporation of evidence-based psychological care practices for patients with serious illnesses would support the development of valid and useful clinical quality indicators.</p>","PeriodicalId":52388,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaclp.2025.09.002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Psychological care for patients with serious illness is recommended; however, established quality indicators for this care are lacking.

Objectives: This study aimed to review clinical quality indicators to evaluate the quality of psychological care for patients with serious illnesses.

Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched six databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. Our review included studies on the development of quality indicators for psychological care in patients with serious illness. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently, and methodological quality was evaluated using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. The study protocol was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000051290).

Results: Among the identified 2,119 reports, 345 reports were reviewed in detail and 12 studies met the eligibility criteria. From these, 24 quality indicators were identified, some of which overlapped conceptually or in content: 1 structure, 14 process, and 9 outcome indicators. According to the AIRE instrument, most studies satisfied the category 1 criteria (clarity of purpose, relevance, and organizational context); however, formal validation of the developed indicators in practice was rarely conducted.

Conclusion: There is an urgent need for a comprehensive set of validated quality indicators to assess the quality of psychological care across multiple components. Increasing the incorporation of evidence-based psychological care practices for patients with serious illnesses would support the development of valid and useful clinical quality indicators.

重症患者心理护理质量指标的系统评价。
背景:建议对重症患者进行心理护理;然而,缺乏这种护理的既定质量指标。目的:回顾临床质量指标,评价重症患者心理护理质量。方法:本系统评价按照系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目进行。我们检索了六个数据库,包括MEDLINE、EMBASE和PsycINFO。我们的综述包括关于重症患者心理护理质量指标发展的研究。研究选择和数据提取独立进行,采用研究与评价指标评价(AIRE)工具对方法学质量进行评价。研究方案已在大学医院医疗信息网注册(UMIN000051290)。结果:在确定的2119份报告中,345份报告被详细审查,12项研究符合入选标准。从中确定了24个质量指标,其中一些在概念上或内容上重叠:1个结构指标,14个过程指标和9个结果指标。根据AIRE工具,大多数研究满足第1类标准(目的明确、相关性和组织背景);然而,在实践中很少对所制定的指标进行正式验证。结论:迫切需要一套综合的、经过验证的质量指标来评估心理护理的质量。增加对重症患者的循证心理护理实践的纳入将有助于制定有效和有用的临床质量指标。
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
5.80
自引率
13.00%
发文量
378
审稿时长
50 days
×
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