患者报告的围麻醉期护理经验测量的心理计量学评估：基于 COSMIN 指南的系统回顾。

IF 7.5 1区医学 Q1 NURSING

International Journal of Nursing Studies Pub Date : 2024-10-14 DOI:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104930

Jingying Huang , Jin Yang , Mengbo Han , Zihao Xue , Miaomiao Xu , Haiou Qi , Jiaojiao Chen , Caiya Xue , Yuting Wang

{"title":"患者报告的围麻醉期护理经验测量的心理计量学评估：基于 COSMIN 指南的系统回顾。","authors":"Jingying Huang , Jin Yang , Mengbo Han , Zihao Xue , Miaomiao Xu , Haiou Qi , Jiaojiao Chen , Caiya Xue , Yuting Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104930","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREM) have become a critical component in assessing healthcare quality from the patient's perspective. Accurate and reproducible assessment tools are essential for generating robust and reliable results for evaluating peri-anesthesia patient experiences, identifying associated factors, and assessing the impact of healthcare interventions. However, there is currently no systematic review that consolidates all existing peri-anesthesia PREMs and evaluates their psychometric properties.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To identify and assess the psychometric properties of PREMs for peri-anesthesia patients.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Systematic review of measurement properties following the COSMIN guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Systematic searches were conducted in China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from January 1, 1993, to April 15, 2024. Studies reporting on the development and/or validation of any PREMs for use in the peri-anesthesia period were considered eligible. The measurement properties extracted included data on the item development process, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity, reliability, hypothesis testing and responsiveness. For the same PREM across different studies, reliability coefficients were analyzed using a meta-analysis. The quality assessment, rating of measurement properties, synthesis, and modified grading of the evidence were carried out following the COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 26 studies encompassing 16 PREMs were included. Among them, the Patient Satisfaction with Perioperative Anesthetic Care questionnaire (PSPACq), Perception of Quality in Anesthesia (PQA), Sindhvananda General Anesthesia Satisfaction questionnaire, and Daycare Anesthesia Satisfaction (DAS) demonstrated moderate to high-quality evidence of adequate content validity and internal consistency, resulting in strong recommendations. Five PREMs exhibited high-quality evidence of inadequate structural validity and internal consistency, receiving a “not recommended” status. The remaining PREMs were weakly recommended.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This systematic review identified PSPACq and PQA as effective tools for assessing peri-anesthesia experiences in surgical patients, suitable for both research and clinical use. Future studies should focus on thoroughly evaluating the measurement properties of these two PREMs, as many aspects remain underexplored. A high risk of bias was noted in other PREMs, particularly in content validity, structural validity, and reliability, which increases uncertainty in the evidence base.</div></div><div><h3>Registration</h3><div>This study's protocol has been registered at PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42024537900.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50299,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nursing Studies","volume":"161 ","pages":"Article 104930"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychometric evaluation of patient-reported experience measures for peri-anesthesia care: A systematic review based on COSMIN guidelines\",\"authors\":\"Jingying Huang , Jin Yang , Mengbo Han , Zihao Xue , Miaomiao Xu , Haiou Qi , Jiaojiao Chen , Caiya Xue , Yuting Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104930\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREM) have become a critical component in assessing healthcare quality from the patient's perspective. Accurate and reproducible assessment tools are essential for generating robust and reliable results for evaluating peri-anesthesia patient experiences, identifying associated factors, and assessing the impact of healthcare interventions. However, there is currently no systematic review that consolidates all existing peri-anesthesia PREMs and evaluates their psychometric properties.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To identify and assess the psychometric properties of PREMs for peri-anesthesia patients.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Systematic review of measurement properties following the COSMIN guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Systematic searches were conducted in China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from January 1, 1993, to April 15, 2024. Studies reporting on the development and/or validation of any PREMs for use in the peri-anesthesia period were considered eligible. The measurement properties extracted included data on the item development process, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity, reliability, hypothesis testing and responsiveness. For the same PREM across different studies, reliability coefficients were analyzed using a meta-analysis. The quality assessment, rating of measurement properties, synthesis, and modified grading of the evidence were carried out following the COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 26 studies encompassing 16 PREMs were included. Among them, the Patient Satisfaction with Perioperative Anesthetic Care questionnaire (PSPACq), Perception of Quality in Anesthesia (PQA), Sindhvananda General Anesthesia Satisfaction questionnaire, and Daycare Anesthesia Satisfaction (DAS) demonstrated moderate to high-quality evidence of adequate content validity and internal consistency, resulting in strong recommendations. Five PREMs exhibited high-quality evidence of inadequate structural validity and internal consistency, receiving a “not recommended” status. The remaining PREMs were weakly recommended.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This systematic review identified PSPACq and PQA as effective tools for assessing peri-anesthesia experiences in surgical patients, suitable for both research and clinical use. Future studies should focus on thoroughly evaluating the measurement properties of these two PREMs, as many aspects remain underexplored. A high risk of bias was noted in other PREMs, particularly in content validity, structural validity, and reliability, which increases uncertainty in the evidence base.</div></div><div><h3>Registration</h3><div>This study's protocol has been registered at PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42024537900.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50299,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Nursing Studies\",\"volume\":\"161 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104930\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Nursing Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748924002438\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nursing Studies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748924002438","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

背景：患者报告体验指标（PREM）已成为从患者角度评估医疗质量的重要组成部分。准确且可重复的评估工具对于产生稳健可靠的结果以评估围麻醉期患者体验、确定相关因素以及评估医疗干预措施的影响至关重要。然而，目前还没有系统性综述将所有现有的围麻醉期 PREMs 整合在一起，并对其心理测量特性进行评估：确定并评估围麻醉期患者 PREMs 的心理测量特性：设计：根据COSMIN指南对测量特性进行系统回顾：从 1993 年 1 月 1 日至 2024 年 4 月 15 日，在中国国家知识基础设施、万方数据库、PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、CINAHL 和 PsycINFO 数据库中进行了系统检索。对任何用于围麻醉期的 PREM 的开发和/或验证进行报告的研究均符合条件。提取的测量属性包括项目开发过程、内容效度、结构效度、内部一致性、跨文化效度、可靠性、假设检验和响应性等方面的数据。对于不同研究中的同一 PREM，采用荟萃分析法对可靠性系数进行分析。按照 COSMIN 系统综述方法，对证据进行了质量评估、测量属性评级、综合和修改分级：结果：共纳入了 26 项研究，包括 16 个 PREMs。其中，患者对围手术期麻醉护理满意度调查问卷（PSPACq）、麻醉质量感知（PQA）、辛德瓦南达全身麻醉满意度调查问卷和日间护理麻醉满意度（DAS）显示了中度到高质量的证据，具有足够的内容效度和内部一致性，因此被强烈推荐。五项 PREM 显示出高质量的证据，但结构效度和内部一致性不足，因此被列为 "不推荐"。其余的 PREM 均为弱推荐：本系统综述确定 PSPACq 和 PQA 是评估手术患者围麻醉期体验的有效工具，适合研究和临床使用。未来的研究应侧重于全面评估这两种 PREM 的测量特性，因为许多方面仍未得到充分探索。其他 PREMs 也存在较高的偏差风险，尤其是在内容效度、结构效度和可靠性方面，这增加了证据基础的不确定性：本研究方案已在 PROSPERO 注册，注册号为 CRD42024537900。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Psychometric evaluation of patient-reported experience measures for peri-anesthesia care: A systematic review based on COSMIN guidelines

Background

Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREM) have become a critical component in assessing healthcare quality from the patient's perspective. Accurate and reproducible assessment tools are essential for generating robust and reliable results for evaluating peri-anesthesia patient experiences, identifying associated factors, and assessing the impact of healthcare interventions. However, there is currently no systematic review that consolidates all existing peri-anesthesia PREMs and evaluates their psychometric properties.

Objective

To identify and assess the psychometric properties of PREMs for peri-anesthesia patients.

Design

Systematic review of measurement properties following the COSMIN guidelines.

Methods

Systematic searches were conducted in China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from January 1, 1993, to April 15, 2024. Studies reporting on the development and/or validation of any PREMs for use in the peri-anesthesia period were considered eligible. The measurement properties extracted included data on the item development process, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity, reliability, hypothesis testing and responsiveness. For the same PREM across different studies, reliability coefficients were analyzed using a meta-analysis. The quality assessment, rating of measurement properties, synthesis, and modified grading of the evidence were carried out following the COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews.

Results

A total of 26 studies encompassing 16 PREMs were included. Among them, the Patient Satisfaction with Perioperative Anesthetic Care questionnaire (PSPACq), Perception of Quality in Anesthesia (PQA), Sindhvananda General Anesthesia Satisfaction questionnaire, and Daycare Anesthesia Satisfaction (DAS) demonstrated moderate to high-quality evidence of adequate content validity and internal consistency, resulting in strong recommendations. Five PREMs exhibited high-quality evidence of inadequate structural validity and internal consistency, receiving a “not recommended” status. The remaining PREMs were weakly recommended.

Conclusions

This systematic review identified PSPACq and PQA as effective tools for assessing peri-anesthesia experiences in surgical patients, suitable for both research and clinical use. Future studies should focus on thoroughly evaluating the measurement properties of these two PREMs, as many aspects remain underexplored. A high risk of bias was noted in other PREMs, particularly in content validity, structural validity, and reliability, which increases uncertainty in the evidence base.

Registration

This study's protocol has been registered at PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42024537900.

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

International Journal of Nursing Studies 医学-护理

CiteScore

15.00

自引率

2.50%

发文量

181

审稿时长

21 days

期刊介绍： The International Journal of Nursing Studies (IJNS) is a highly respected journal that has been publishing original peer-reviewed articles since 1963. It provides a forum for original research and scholarship about health care delivery, organisation, management, workforce, policy, and research methods relevant to nursing, midwifery, and other health related professions. The journal aims to support evidence informed policy and practice by publishing research, systematic and other scholarly reviews, critical discussion, and commentary of the highest standard. The IJNS is indexed in major databases including PubMed, Medline, Thomson Reuters - Science Citation Index, Scopus, Thomson Reuters - Social Science Citation Index, CINAHL, and the BNI (British Nursing Index).