人类免疫缺陷病毒快速护理点技术概念验证研究可行性的措施和指标:证据和框架。

Q3 Nursing
Point of Care Pub Date : 2017-12-01 Epub Date: 2017-11-14 DOI:10.1097/POC.0000000000000147
Nitika Pant Pai, Tiago Chiavegatti, Rohit Vijh, Nicolaos Karatzas, Jana Daher, Megan Smallwood, Tom Wong, Nora Engel
{"title":"人类免疫缺陷病毒快速护理点技术概念验证研究可行性的措施和指标:证据和框架。","authors":"Nitika Pant Pai,&nbsp;Tiago Chiavegatti,&nbsp;Rohit Vijh,&nbsp;Nicolaos Karatzas,&nbsp;Jana Daher,&nbsp;Megan Smallwood,&nbsp;Tom Wong,&nbsp;Nora Engel","doi":"10.1097/POC.0000000000000147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Pilot (feasibility) studies form a vast majority of diagnostic studies with point-of-care technologies but often lack use of clear measures/metrics and a consistent framework for reporting and evaluation. To fill this gap, we systematically reviewed data to (<i>a</i>) catalog feasibility measures/metrics and (<i>b</i>) propose a framework.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For the period January 2000 to March 2014, 2 reviewers searched 4 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus), retrieved 1441 citations, and abstracted data from 81 studies. We observed 2 major categories of measures, that is, implementation centered and patient centered, and 4 subcategories of measures, that is, feasibility, acceptability, preference, and patient experience. We defined and delineated metrics and measures for a feasibility framework. We documented impact measures for a comparison.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We observed heterogeneity in reporting of metrics as well as misclassification and misuse of metrics within measures. Although we observed poorly defined measures and metrics for feasibility, preference, and patient experience, in contrast, acceptability measure was the best defined. For example, within feasibility, metrics such as consent, completion, new infection, linkage rates, and turnaround times were misclassified and reported. Similarly, patient experience was variously reported as test convenience, comfort, pain, and/or satisfaction. In contrast, within impact measures, all the metrics were well documented, thus serving as a good baseline comparator. With our framework, we classified, delineated, and defined quantitative measures and metrics for feasibility.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our framework, with its defined measures/metrics, could reduce misclassification and improve the overall quality of reporting for monitoring and evaluation of rapid point-of-care technology strategies and their context-driven optimization.</p>","PeriodicalId":44085,"journal":{"name":"Point of Care","volume":"16 4","pages":"141-150"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/POC.0000000000000147","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measures and Metrics for Feasibility of Proof-of-Concept Studies With Human Immunodeficiency Virus Rapid Point-of-Care Technologies: The Evidence and the Framework.\",\"authors\":\"Nitika Pant Pai,&nbsp;Tiago Chiavegatti,&nbsp;Rohit Vijh,&nbsp;Nicolaos Karatzas,&nbsp;Jana Daher,&nbsp;Megan Smallwood,&nbsp;Tom Wong,&nbsp;Nora Engel\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/POC.0000000000000147\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Pilot (feasibility) studies form a vast majority of diagnostic studies with point-of-care technologies but often lack use of clear measures/metrics and a consistent framework for reporting and evaluation. To fill this gap, we systematically reviewed data to (<i>a</i>) catalog feasibility measures/metrics and (<i>b</i>) propose a framework.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For the period January 2000 to March 2014, 2 reviewers searched 4 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus), retrieved 1441 citations, and abstracted data from 81 studies. We observed 2 major categories of measures, that is, implementation centered and patient centered, and 4 subcategories of measures, that is, feasibility, acceptability, preference, and patient experience. We defined and delineated metrics and measures for a feasibility framework. We documented impact measures for a comparison.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We observed heterogeneity in reporting of metrics as well as misclassification and misuse of metrics within measures. Although we observed poorly defined measures and metrics for feasibility, preference, and patient experience, in contrast, acceptability measure was the best defined. For example, within feasibility, metrics such as consent, completion, new infection, linkage rates, and turnaround times were misclassified and reported. Similarly, patient experience was variously reported as test convenience, comfort, pain, and/or satisfaction. In contrast, within impact measures, all the metrics were well documented, thus serving as a good baseline comparator. With our framework, we classified, delineated, and defined quantitative measures and metrics for feasibility.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our framework, with its defined measures/metrics, could reduce misclassification and improve the overall quality of reporting for monitoring and evaluation of rapid point-of-care technology strategies and their context-driven optimization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44085,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Point of Care\",\"volume\":\"16 4\",\"pages\":\"141-150\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/POC.0000000000000147\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Point of Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/POC.0000000000000147\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/11/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Point of Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/POC.0000000000000147","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/11/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的:试验性(可行性)研究构成了绝大多数关于护理点技术的诊断研究,但往往缺乏使用明确的措施/指标和一致的报告和评估框架。为了填补这一空白,我们系统地审查了数据,以(a)对可行性措施/指标进行分类,(b)提出一个框架。方法:2000年1月至2014年3月,2位审稿人检索MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、Scopus 4个数据库,检索到1441篇引文,提取81篇研究数据。我们观察到2大类措施,即以实施为中心和以患者为中心;4大类措施,即可行性、可接受性、偏好性和患者体验。我们定义并描绘了可行性框架的度量和措施。我们记录了影响措施进行比较。研究结果:我们观察到指标报告的异质性,以及测量中指标的错误分类和误用。虽然我们观察到可行性、偏好和患者经验的测量和度量定义不佳,相反,可接受性测量是定义最好的。例如,在可行性中,诸如同意、完成、新感染、连接率和周转时间等指标被错误分类和报告。同样,患者体验也被不同地报告为测试的便利性、舒适性、疼痛和/或满意度。相比之下,在影响度量中,所有的度量都被很好地记录下来,因此可以作为一个很好的基线比较。有了我们的框架,我们分类、描绘和定义了可行性的定量测量和度量。结论:我们的框架,其定义的测量/指标,可以减少错误分类,提高报告的整体质量,以监测和评估快速护理点技术策略及其上下文驱动的优化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Measures and Metrics for Feasibility of Proof-of-Concept Studies With Human Immunodeficiency Virus Rapid Point-of-Care Technologies: The Evidence and the Framework.

Measures and Metrics for Feasibility of Proof-of-Concept Studies With Human Immunodeficiency Virus Rapid Point-of-Care Technologies: The Evidence and the Framework.

Measures and Metrics for Feasibility of Proof-of-Concept Studies With Human Immunodeficiency Virus Rapid Point-of-Care Technologies: The Evidence and the Framework.

Measures and Metrics for Feasibility of Proof-of-Concept Studies With Human Immunodeficiency Virus Rapid Point-of-Care Technologies: The Evidence and the Framework.

Objective: Pilot (feasibility) studies form a vast majority of diagnostic studies with point-of-care technologies but often lack use of clear measures/metrics and a consistent framework for reporting and evaluation. To fill this gap, we systematically reviewed data to (a) catalog feasibility measures/metrics and (b) propose a framework.

Methods: For the period January 2000 to March 2014, 2 reviewers searched 4 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus), retrieved 1441 citations, and abstracted data from 81 studies. We observed 2 major categories of measures, that is, implementation centered and patient centered, and 4 subcategories of measures, that is, feasibility, acceptability, preference, and patient experience. We defined and delineated metrics and measures for a feasibility framework. We documented impact measures for a comparison.

Findings: We observed heterogeneity in reporting of metrics as well as misclassification and misuse of metrics within measures. Although we observed poorly defined measures and metrics for feasibility, preference, and patient experience, in contrast, acceptability measure was the best defined. For example, within feasibility, metrics such as consent, completion, new infection, linkage rates, and turnaround times were misclassified and reported. Similarly, patient experience was variously reported as test convenience, comfort, pain, and/or satisfaction. In contrast, within impact measures, all the metrics were well documented, thus serving as a good baseline comparator. With our framework, we classified, delineated, and defined quantitative measures and metrics for feasibility.

Conclusions: Our framework, with its defined measures/metrics, could reduce misclassification and improve the overall quality of reporting for monitoring and evaluation of rapid point-of-care technology strategies and their context-driven optimization.

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
Point of Care
Point of Care MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology is a vital resource for directors and managers of large and small hospital pathology labs, blood centers, home health-care agencies, doctors" offices, and other healthcare facilities. Each issue brings you peer-reviewed original research articles, along with concepts, technologies and trends, covering topics that include: Test accuracy Turnaround time Data management Quality control Regulatory compliance Cost-effectiveness of testing
×
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