Psychometric evaluation of patient-reported experience measures for peri-anesthesia care: A systematic review based on COSMIN guidelines

Abstract

Background

Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREM) have become a critical component in assessing healthcare quality from the patient's perspective. Accurate and reproducible assessment tools are essential for generating robust and reliable results for evaluating peri-anesthesia patient experiences, identifying associated factors, and assessing the impact of healthcare interventions. However, there is currently no systematic review that consolidates all existing peri-anesthesia PREMs and evaluates their psychometric properties.

Objective

To identify and assess the psychometric properties of PREMs for peri-anesthesia patients.

Design

Systematic review of measurement properties following the COSMIN guidelines.

Methods

Systematic searches were conducted in China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from January 1, 1993, to April 15, 2024. Studies reporting on the development and/or validation of any PREMs for use in the peri-anesthesia period were considered eligible. The measurement properties extracted included data on the item development process, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity, reliability, hypothesis testing and responsiveness. For the same PREM across different studies, reliability coefficients were analyzed using a meta-analysis. The quality assessment, rating of measurement properties, synthesis, and modified grading of the evidence were carried out following the COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews.

Results

A total of 26 studies encompassing 16 PREMs were included. Among them, the Patient Satisfaction with Perioperative Anesthetic Care questionnaire (PSPACq), Perception of Quality in Anesthesia (PQA), Sindhvananda General Anesthesia Satisfaction questionnaire, and Daycare Anesthesia Satisfaction (DAS) demonstrated moderate to high-quality evidence of adequate content validity and internal consistency, resulting in strong recommendations. Five PREMs exhibited high-quality evidence of inadequate structural validity and internal consistency, receiving a “not recommended” status. The remaining PREMs were weakly recommended.

Conclusions

This systematic review identified PSPACq and PQA as effective tools for assessing peri-anesthesia experiences in surgical patients, suitable for both research and clinical use. Future studies should focus on thoroughly evaluating the measurement properties of these two PREMs, as many aspects remain underexplored. A high risk of bias was noted in other PREMs, particularly in content validity, structural validity, and reliability, which increases uncertainty in the evidence base.

Registration

This study's protocol has been registered at PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42024537900.