Psychosocial outcome assessments for use in cardiac rehabilitation service evaluation: a 10-year systematic review
Psychosocial outcome assessments for use in cardiac rehabilitation service evaluation: a 10-year systematic review
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00428-6
复制
发表时间：
1999-05-01
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Horgan, JH
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
McGee, HM;Hevey, D;Horgan, JH
目前，在心脏康复计划中，采用了多种措施来评估心理社会结果（生活质量）。然而，对于最适当的工具没有达成共识。不能充分响应心脏群体变化的工具不适合作为审计工具，因为它们不能充分代表项目参与的益处。为了确定心脏康复人群中最敏感的仪器，对1986-1995年10年期间的研究进行了系统概述。检索了以下数据库：Medline、Psychlit、Cinahl和Sociofile，确定了32项相关研究。使用效应量统计（变化幅度与基线评分变异性的比较）来确定对变化最敏感的工具。以下工具在多项研究中被确定为有响应：贝克抑郁量表、总体情绪量表、健康投诉量表、心脏病患者心理问卷和Speilberger状态焦虑量表。在心脏康复文献中，对心理社会评估工具的使用几乎没有共识。许多措施显示出常规结果评估的巨大潜力。建议对这些工具进行正式评估，以告知有关心脏康复中用于审计和评价目的的工具选择的最终建议。(C)1999爱思唯尔科技有限公司。保留所有权利。
A variety of measures are currently used to assess psychosocial outcome (quality of life) in cardiac rehabilitation programmes. However, there is no consensus on the most appropriate instruments to use. Instruments that are not sufficiently responsive to change in cardiac populations are unsuitable as audit tools as they underrepresent the benefits of programme attendance. To identify the most responsive instruments in cardiac rehabilitation populations a systematic overview of studies for the 10-year period 1986-1995 was conducted. The following databases were searched: Medline, Psychlit, Cinahl and Sociofile and 32 relevant studies were identified. The effect size statistic (a comparison of the magnitude of change to the variability in baseline scores) was used to determine those instruments most responsive to change. The following instruments were identified as being responsive in more than one study: Beck Depression Inventory, Global Mood Scale, Health Complaints Checklist, Heart Patients Psychological Questionnaire and Speilberger State Anxiety Inventory. There is little consensus on psychosocial evaluation instrument use in the cardiac rehabilitation literature. A number of measures show significant potential for routine outcome assessment. Formal assessment of these instruments is recommended to inform final recommendations about instrument selection for audit and evaluation purposes in cardiac rehabilitation. (C) 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.