How to measure mental pain: a systematic review assessing measures of mental pain.

IF 6.6 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Evidence Based Mental Health Pub Date : 2022-11-01 Epub Date: 2022-07-28 DOI:10.1136/ebmental-2021-300350
Camille Charvet, Isabelle Boutron, Yannick Morvan, Catherine Le Berre, Suzanne Touboul, Raphaël Gaillard, Eiko Fried, Astrid Chevance
{"title":"How to measure mental pain: a systematic review assessing measures of mental pain.","authors":"Camille Charvet, Isabelle Boutron, Yannick Morvan, Catherine Le Berre, Suzanne Touboul, Raphaël Gaillard, Eiko Fried, Astrid Chevance","doi":"10.1136/ebmental-2021-300350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Question: </strong>Although mental pain is present in many mental disorders and is a predictor of suicide, it is rarely investigated in research or treated in care. A valid tool to measure it is a necessary first step towards better understanding, predicting and ultimately relieving this pain.</p><p><strong>Study selection and analysis: </strong>Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we performed a systematic review to identify all published standardised measures of mental pain. We used qualitative content analysis to evaluate the similarity of each measure, quantified via Jaccard Index scores ranging from no similarity (0) to full similarity (1). Finally, using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology, we evaluated each measure's development (assessing 35 features), its content validity (31 features) and if the latter was rated at least adequate, its other psychometric properties.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We identified 10 self-reported scales of mental pain in 2658 screened studies relying on diverse definitions of this construct. The highest average similarity coefficient for any given measure was 0.24, indicative of weak similarity (individual pairwise coefficients from 0 to 0.5). Little to no information was provided regarding the development and the content validity of all 10 scales. Therefore, their development and content validity were rated 'inadequate' or 'doubtful'.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and clinical implications: </strong>There is not enough evidence of validity to recommend using one measure over others in research or clinical practice. Heterogeneous use of disparate measures across studies limits comparison and combination of their results in meta-analyses. Development by all stakeholders (especially patients) of a consensual patient-reported measure for mental pain is needed.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42021242679.</p>","PeriodicalId":12233,"journal":{"name":"Evidence Based Mental Health","volume":"25 4","pages":"e4"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10231614/pdf/ebmental-2021-300350.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence Based Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2021-300350","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Question: Although mental pain is present in many mental disorders and is a predictor of suicide, it is rarely investigated in research or treated in care. A valid tool to measure it is a necessary first step towards better understanding, predicting and ultimately relieving this pain.

Study selection and analysis: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we performed a systematic review to identify all published standardised measures of mental pain. We used qualitative content analysis to evaluate the similarity of each measure, quantified via Jaccard Index scores ranging from no similarity (0) to full similarity (1). Finally, using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology, we evaluated each measure's development (assessing 35 features), its content validity (31 features) and if the latter was rated at least adequate, its other psychometric properties.

Findings: We identified 10 self-reported scales of mental pain in 2658 screened studies relying on diverse definitions of this construct. The highest average similarity coefficient for any given measure was 0.24, indicative of weak similarity (individual pairwise coefficients from 0 to 0.5). Little to no information was provided regarding the development and the content validity of all 10 scales. Therefore, their development and content validity were rated 'inadequate' or 'doubtful'.

Conclusions and clinical implications: There is not enough evidence of validity to recommend using one measure over others in research or clinical practice. Heterogeneous use of disparate measures across studies limits comparison and combination of their results in meta-analyses. Development by all stakeholders (especially patients) of a consensual patient-reported measure for mental pain is needed.

Prospero registration number: CRD42021242679.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
如何测量精神痛苦:评估精神痛苦测量方法的系统综述。
问题:尽管精神痛苦存在于许多精神障碍中,而且是自杀的一个预测因素,但在研究或护理中却很少对其进行调查或治疗。要想更好地了解、预测并最终缓解这种痛苦,首先必须要有一种有效的工具来测量这种痛苦:根据《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南,我们进行了系统综述,以确定所有已发表的精神痛苦标准化测量方法。我们使用定性内容分析法评估了每种测量方法的相似性,并通过从无相似性(0)到完全相似性(1)的 Jaccard 指数进行量化。最后,我们使用基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准(COSMIN)方法,评估了每个测量工具的开发(评估 35 个特征)、内容效度(31 个特征),如果后者至少被评为足够,则评估其其他心理测量特性:我们在 2658 项经过筛选的研究中发现了 10 个自我报告的精神痛苦量表,这些研究采用了不同的精神痛苦定义。任何特定量表的最高平均相似系数为 0.24,表明相似性较弱(单个配对系数在 0 至 0.5 之间)。关于所有 10 个量表的开发和内容效度,几乎没有提供任何信息。因此,这些量表的开发和内容效度被评为 "不足 "或 "可疑":没有足够的有效性证据建议在研究或临床实践中使用一种量表而非其他量表。不同研究中使用的不同测量方法限制了在荟萃分析中对其结果的比较和组合。需要由所有利益相关者(尤其是患者)共同开发一种患者报告的精神痛苦测量方法:CRD42021242679。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
18.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Evidence-Based Mental Health alerts clinicians to important advances in treatment, diagnosis, aetiology, prognosis, continuing education, economic evaluation and qualitative research in mental health. Published by the British Psychological Society, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the BMJ Publishing Group the journal surveys a wide range of international medical journals applying strict criteria for the quality and validity of research. Clinicians assess the relevance of the best studies and the key details of these essential studies are presented in a succinct, informative abstract with an expert commentary on its clinical application.Evidence-Based Mental Health is a multidisciplinary, quarterly publication.
期刊最新文献
Vitruvian plot: a visualisation tool for multiple outcomes in network meta-analysis. Important adverse events to be evaluated in antidepressant trials and meta-analyses in depression: a large international preference study including patients and healthcare professionals. Comparison of prediction methods for treatment continuation of antipsychotics in children and adolescents with schizophrenia. Components of smartphone cognitive-behavioural therapy for subthreshold depression among 1093 university students: a factorial trial. Associations between antipsychotics and risk of violent crimes and suicidal behaviour in personality disorder.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1