对过渡为父母的患者报告结果测量内容有效性的系统评价。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Elise van Beeck, Laura Van den Branden, Wichor M Bramer, Yvonne Kuipers
{"title":"对过渡为父母的患者报告结果测量内容有效性的系统评价。","authors":"Elise van Beeck,&nbsp;Laura Van den Branden,&nbsp;Wichor M Bramer,&nbsp;Yvonne Kuipers","doi":"10.1177/01632787221127382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This review aims to identify self-report instruments examining aspects of transition to parenthood for use in practice and research. After performing a literature search in Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, PsycINFO and Google Scholar, the Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) measuring (aspects of) transition to parenthood during pregnancy or up to 1-year postpartum were identified. Following COSMIN guidelines for systematic reviews on PROMs, the quality of the PROM development and PROM content validity was evaluated. From the 129 included studies, 39 PROMs assessed aspects of transition to parenthood. A total of 32 PROMs were included in the evaluation. The development quality of 30/32 PROMS was mostly rated as inadequate and the quality of 15 content validity studies was mostly rated as doubtful. All PROMs received inadequate or doubtful ratings on content validity. Most of the PROMs measuring aspects of the transition to parenthood didn't include parents' points of view when developing them. Many PROMs are being used for a long time without reassessing relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility among parents and/or practitioners. It is recommended that researchers and healthcare professionals assess content validity of the PROM before use with the target population.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic Review of the Content Validity of Patient Reported Outcome Measures of Transition to Parenthood.\",\"authors\":\"Elise van Beeck,&nbsp;Laura Van den Branden,&nbsp;Wichor M Bramer,&nbsp;Yvonne Kuipers\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01632787221127382\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This review aims to identify self-report instruments examining aspects of transition to parenthood for use in practice and research. After performing a literature search in Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, PsycINFO and Google Scholar, the Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) measuring (aspects of) transition to parenthood during pregnancy or up to 1-year postpartum were identified. Following COSMIN guidelines for systematic reviews on PROMs, the quality of the PROM development and PROM content validity was evaluated. From the 129 included studies, 39 PROMs assessed aspects of transition to parenthood. A total of 32 PROMs were included in the evaluation. The development quality of 30/32 PROMS was mostly rated as inadequate and the quality of 15 content validity studies was mostly rated as doubtful. All PROMs received inadequate or doubtful ratings on content validity. Most of the PROMs measuring aspects of the transition to parenthood didn't include parents' points of view when developing them. Many PROMs are being used for a long time without reassessing relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility among parents and/or practitioners. It is recommended that researchers and healthcare professionals assess content validity of the PROM before use with the target population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation & the Health Professions\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation & the Health Professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787221127382\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787221127382","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本综述的目的是确定自我报告工具检查方面的过渡到父母在实践和研究中使用。在Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, PsycINFO和Google Scholar中进行文献检索后,确定了患者报告的结果测量(PROMs),测量怀孕期间或产后1年向父母过渡的(方面)。遵循COSMIN对PROM进行系统评价的指导方针,对PROM开发的质量和PROM内容的效度进行了评估。在纳入的129项研究中,39项PROMs评估了向父母过渡的各个方面。共有32个prom被纳入评估。30/32个PROMS的开发质量大多被评为不足,15个内容效度研究的质量大多被评为可疑。所有prom在内容效度上都得到了不充分或可疑的评级。大多数衡量向为人父母过渡方面的prom在开发时没有包括父母的观点。许多prom被使用了很长时间,却没有在家长和/或从业者中重新评估相关性、全面性和可理解性。建议研究人员和医疗保健专业人员在使用目标人群之前评估PROM的内容有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic Review of the Content Validity of Patient Reported Outcome Measures of Transition to Parenthood.

This review aims to identify self-report instruments examining aspects of transition to parenthood for use in practice and research. After performing a literature search in Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, PsycINFO and Google Scholar, the Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) measuring (aspects of) transition to parenthood during pregnancy or up to 1-year postpartum were identified. Following COSMIN guidelines for systematic reviews on PROMs, the quality of the PROM development and PROM content validity was evaluated. From the 129 included studies, 39 PROMs assessed aspects of transition to parenthood. A total of 32 PROMs were included in the evaluation. The development quality of 30/32 PROMS was mostly rated as inadequate and the quality of 15 content validity studies was mostly rated as doubtful. All PROMs received inadequate or doubtful ratings on content validity. Most of the PROMs measuring aspects of the transition to parenthood didn't include parents' points of view when developing them. Many PROMs are being used for a long time without reassessing relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility among parents and/or practitioners. It is recommended that researchers and healthcare professionals assess content validity of the PROM before use with the target population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evaluation & the Health Professions is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that provides health-related professionals with state-of-the-art methodological, measurement, and statistical tools for conceptualizing the etiology of health promotion and problems, and developing, implementing, and evaluating health programs, teaching and training services, and products that pertain to a myriad of health dimensions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 31 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信