The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review.
The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0191747
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Pieterse AH
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gärtner FR;Bomhof-Roordink H;Smith IP;Scholl I;Stiggelbout AM;Pieterse AH
清点评估共同决策过程的工具，并评估其计量质量，同时考虑到其验证研究的方法质量。在一项系统性综述中，我们检索了7个数据库（PubMed、Embase、Emcare、科克伦、PsycINFO、Web of Science、Academic Search Premier），以研究测量共同决策过程的工具。根据识别的工具，我们按照三步程序分别评估了10个测量属性的证据等级：1）使用基于常识的健康状况测量仪器选择标准（COSMIN）检查表评估方法学质量，2）使用三种可能的质量分数评估测量属性的心理测量质量，3）基于研究数量、方法学和心理测量学质量以及结果的方向和一致性的最佳证据综合。研究方案已在PROSPERO注册：CRD 42015023397。我们纳入了51篇文章，描述了40种共享决策过程工具的开发和/或评估：16份患者问卷，4份供应商问卷，18份编码方案和2种测量多个角度的工具。总体上缺乏证据证明其测量质量，或者是因为缺少验证，或者是因为方法很差。最佳证据综合表明，如果对内容有效性（50%）和结构有效性（53%）进行评估，大部分工具的内容有效性（50%）和结构有效性（53%）结果为阳性，但当评估者间可靠性（47%）和假设时，大部分工具的结果为阴性测试（59%）进行了评估。由于缺乏衡量质量的证据，最适当的工具的选择最好是基于工具的内容和特点，如他们评估的角度。我们建议完善和验证现有工具，并使用COSMIN指南，以帮助保证高质量的评价。
To inventory instruments assessing the process of shared decision making and appraise their measurement quality, taking into account the methodological quality of their validation studies. In a systematic review we searched seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier) for studies investigating instruments measuring the process of shared decision making. Per identified instrument, we assessed the level of evidence separately for 10 measurement properties following a three-step procedure: 1) appraisal of the methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, 2) appraisal of the psychometric quality of the measurement property using three possible quality scores, 3) best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological and psychometrical quality, and the direction and consistency of the results. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42015023397. We included 51 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 40 shared decision-making process instruments: 16 patient questionnaires, 4 provider questionnaires, 18 coding schemes and 2 instruments measuring multiple perspectives. There is an overall lack of evidence for their measurement quality, either because validation is missing or methods are poor. The best-evidence synthesis indicated positive results for a major part of instruments for content validity (50%) and structural validity (53%) if these were evaluated, but negative results for a major part of instruments when inter-rater reliability (47%) and hypotheses testing (59%) were evaluated. Due to the lack of evidence on measurement quality, the choice for the most appropriate instrument can best be based on the instrument’s content and characteristics such as the perspective that they assess. We recommend refinement and validation of existing instruments, and the use of COSMIN-guidelines to help guarantee high-quality evaluations.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Clayman, Marla L.;Makoul, Gregory;Williams, Adam R.
通讯作者：
Williams, Adam R.
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Elwyn, Glyn;Tsulukidze, Maka;Newcombe, Robert
通讯作者：
Newcombe, Robert
影响因子：
120.7
作者：
Braddock, CH;Edwards, KA;Levinson, W
通讯作者：
Levinson, W
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Couet, Nicolas;Desroches, Sophie;Legare, France
通讯作者：
Legare, France
影响因子：
7.4
作者：
Barr, Paul James;Thompson, Rachel;Elwyn, Glyn
通讯作者：
Elwyn, Glyn