{"title":"成人住院环境中的 \"患者体验报告\"：系统回顾","authors":"Yichen Kang, Tingyu Guan, Xiao Chen, Yuxia Zhang","doi":"10.1155/jonm/5166392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><b>Background:</b> Patient-centered ideas have become the key indicator of medical service quality, and patient-reported experience measures are ways to measure how well this idea is being implemented. There are currently numerous adult inpatient experience instruments available, and it is necessary to conduct such systematic reviews to discover any new instruments and help policymakers and researchers increase the likelihood of hearing true patients’ voices through appropriate selection of these instruments.</p>\n <p><b>Objective:</b> To identify existing adult inpatient experience measures and to critically appraise their development design and psychometric testing results.</p>\n <p><b>Methods:</b> EMBASE, PUBMED, Cochrane, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO, and ProQuest were searched from inception to March 2023. A comprehensive review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted. Studies were identified via specific search terms and inclusion criteria. The methodological quality assessment was evaluated according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.</p>\n <p><b>Results:</b> A total of 29 articles reporting on 23 instruments were included. Each instrument demonstrated both satisfaction and disappointment during the development process and psychometric testing with the recommended criteria of the COSMIN checklist. Pilot tests and cognitive interviews were ignored or not reported in 9 studies. Only 5 studies evaluated the content validity. Among all measurement properties, internal consistency and structural validity were the two most frequently measured attributes. None of the 29 included studies assessed the responsiveness or measurement error of the scales.</p>\n <p><b>Conclusion:</b> Among a variety of adult inpatient experience instruments, only a limited number of studies were methodologically sound. Further research still needs to be conducted for the development and validation of patient-reported experience measures. New quality assessments, such as instrument utility, also should be implemented to provide a more complete evaluation of instruments in the information era.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":49297,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Management","volume":"2024 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/jonm/5166392","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient-Reported Experience Measures in Adult Inpatient Settings: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Yichen Kang, Tingyu Guan, Xiao Chen, Yuxia Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/jonm/5166392\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n <p><b>Background:</b> Patient-centered ideas have become the key indicator of medical service quality, and patient-reported experience measures are ways to measure how well this idea is being implemented. There are currently numerous adult inpatient experience instruments available, and it is necessary to conduct such systematic reviews to discover any new instruments and help policymakers and researchers increase the likelihood of hearing true patients’ voices through appropriate selection of these instruments.</p>\\n <p><b>Objective:</b> To identify existing adult inpatient experience measures and to critically appraise their development design and psychometric testing results.</p>\\n <p><b>Methods:</b> EMBASE, PUBMED, Cochrane, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO, and ProQuest were searched from inception to March 2023. A comprehensive review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted. Studies were identified via specific search terms and inclusion criteria. The methodological quality assessment was evaluated according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.</p>\\n <p><b>Results:</b> A total of 29 articles reporting on 23 instruments were included. Each instrument demonstrated both satisfaction and disappointment during the development process and psychometric testing with the recommended criteria of the COSMIN checklist. Pilot tests and cognitive interviews were ignored or not reported in 9 studies. Only 5 studies evaluated the content validity. Among all measurement properties, internal consistency and structural validity were the two most frequently measured attributes. None of the 29 included studies assessed the responsiveness or measurement error of the scales.</p>\\n <p><b>Conclusion:</b> Among a variety of adult inpatient experience instruments, only a limited number of studies were methodologically sound. Further research still needs to be conducted for the development and validation of patient-reported experience measures. New quality assessments, such as instrument utility, also should be implemented to provide a more complete evaluation of instruments in the information era.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49297,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Nursing Management\",\"volume\":\"2024 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/jonm/5166392\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Nursing Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/jonm/5166392\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nursing Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/jonm/5166392","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
Patient-Reported Experience Measures in Adult Inpatient Settings: A Systematic Review
Background: Patient-centered ideas have become the key indicator of medical service quality, and patient-reported experience measures are ways to measure how well this idea is being implemented. There are currently numerous adult inpatient experience instruments available, and it is necessary to conduct such systematic reviews to discover any new instruments and help policymakers and researchers increase the likelihood of hearing true patients’ voices through appropriate selection of these instruments.
Objective: To identify existing adult inpatient experience measures and to critically appraise their development design and psychometric testing results.
Methods: EMBASE, PUBMED, Cochrane, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO, and ProQuest were searched from inception to March 2023. A comprehensive review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted. Studies were identified via specific search terms and inclusion criteria. The methodological quality assessment was evaluated according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.
Results: A total of 29 articles reporting on 23 instruments were included. Each instrument demonstrated both satisfaction and disappointment during the development process and psychometric testing with the recommended criteria of the COSMIN checklist. Pilot tests and cognitive interviews were ignored or not reported in 9 studies. Only 5 studies evaluated the content validity. Among all measurement properties, internal consistency and structural validity were the two most frequently measured attributes. None of the 29 included studies assessed the responsiveness or measurement error of the scales.
Conclusion: Among a variety of adult inpatient experience instruments, only a limited number of studies were methodologically sound. Further research still needs to be conducted for the development and validation of patient-reported experience measures. New quality assessments, such as instrument utility, also should be implemented to provide a more complete evaluation of instruments in the information era.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Nursing Management is an international forum which informs and advances the discipline of nursing management and leadership. The Journal encourages scholarly debate and critical analysis resulting in a rich source of evidence which underpins and illuminates the practice of management, innovation and leadership in nursing and health care. It publishes current issues and developments in practice in the form of research papers, in-depth commentaries and analyses.
The complex and rapidly changing nature of global health care is constantly generating new challenges and questions. The Journal of Nursing Management welcomes papers from researchers, academics, practitioners, managers, and policy makers from a range of countries and backgrounds which examine these issues and contribute to the body of knowledge in international nursing management and leadership worldwide.
The Journal of Nursing Management aims to:
-Inform practitioners and researchers in nursing management and leadership
-Explore and debate current issues in nursing management and leadership
-Assess the evidence for current practice
-Develop best practice in nursing management and leadership
-Examine the impact of policy developments
-Address issues in governance, quality and safety
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
