The psychometric properties of instruments measuring ethical sensitivity in nursing: a systematic review.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.1186/s13643-024-02473-9
Lu Zhou, LiXiong Bi, YuMing Wu, Lei Wang, Gao Liu, EnLi Cai
{"title":"The psychometric properties of instruments measuring ethical sensitivity in nursing: a systematic review.","authors":"Lu Zhou, LiXiong Bi, YuMing Wu, Lei Wang, Gao Liu, EnLi Cai","doi":"10.1186/s13643-024-02473-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recognizing and appropriately responding to ethical considerations is a crucial element of ethical nursing practice. To mitigate instances of ethical incongruity in healthcare and to promote nurses' comprehension of their professional ethical responsibilities, it is imperative for researchers to accurately evaluate ethical sensitivity. Conducting a systematic review of the available instruments would enable practitioners to determine the most suitable instrument for implementation in the field of nursing.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This review aims to systematically assess the measurement properties of instruments used to measure ethical sensitivity in nursing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was conducted in July 2022 in the following electronic databases: Scopus, CINAHL, APAPsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed the studies in accordance with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. The updated criteria for good measurement properties are used to rate the result of measurement properties, and the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to grade the quality of the summarized evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This review encompasses a total of 29 studies that describe 11 different instruments. Neither cross-cultural validity nor responsiveness was examined in any of the included studies. Whereas the majority of the instruments were conducted with at least some type of validity assessment, nearly all of the reliability results rated were indeterminate. Two instruments were recommended, the Ethical Sensitivity Questionnaire for Nursing Students (ESQ-NS) and the Ethical Awareness Scale for nurses in intensive care units. It is recommended that new self-administration instruments for special nursing settings be developed in accordance with the item response theory (IRT)/Rasch model.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The selection of ethical sensitivity measurement instruments in nursing, and further research on the development, psychometric, and cross-cultural adaptation of these instruments, could be conducted in accordance with the findings and suggestions of this systematic review.</p><p><strong>Strengths and limitations: </strong>• This review was conducted to assess 11 instruments that were used to measure ethical sensitivity in nursing in 29 studies. • The Ethical Sensitivity Questionnaire for Nursing Students (ESQ-NS) and the Ethical Awareness Scale for nurses in intensive care units can be recommended, but further reliability and cross-cultural validity testing are needed. • The IRT/Rasch model is also recommended to measure ethical sensitivity in nursing. • The potential limitation of utilizing the COSMIN checklist for assessing methodological quality is worth considering. • Test-retest was considered inappropriate; thus, the reliability testing of ethical sensitivity measurement instruments still needs to be explored.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"13 1","pages":"87"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11577582/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02473-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Recognizing and appropriately responding to ethical considerations is a crucial element of ethical nursing practice. To mitigate instances of ethical incongruity in healthcare and to promote nurses' comprehension of their professional ethical responsibilities, it is imperative for researchers to accurately evaluate ethical sensitivity. Conducting a systematic review of the available instruments would enable practitioners to determine the most suitable instrument for implementation in the field of nursing.

Aim: This review aims to systematically assess the measurement properties of instruments used to measure ethical sensitivity in nursing.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in July 2022 in the following electronic databases: Scopus, CINAHL, APAPsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed the studies in accordance with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. The updated criteria for good measurement properties are used to rate the result of measurement properties, and the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to grade the quality of the summarized evidence.

Results: This review encompasses a total of 29 studies that describe 11 different instruments. Neither cross-cultural validity nor responsiveness was examined in any of the included studies. Whereas the majority of the instruments were conducted with at least some type of validity assessment, nearly all of the reliability results rated were indeterminate. Two instruments were recommended, the Ethical Sensitivity Questionnaire for Nursing Students (ESQ-NS) and the Ethical Awareness Scale for nurses in intensive care units. It is recommended that new self-administration instruments for special nursing settings be developed in accordance with the item response theory (IRT)/Rasch model.

Conclusion: The selection of ethical sensitivity measurement instruments in nursing, and further research on the development, psychometric, and cross-cultural adaptation of these instruments, could be conducted in accordance with the findings and suggestions of this systematic review.

Strengths and limitations: • This review was conducted to assess 11 instruments that were used to measure ethical sensitivity in nursing in 29 studies. • The Ethical Sensitivity Questionnaire for Nursing Students (ESQ-NS) and the Ethical Awareness Scale for nurses in intensive care units can be recommended, but further reliability and cross-cultural validity testing are needed. • The IRT/Rasch model is also recommended to measure ethical sensitivity in nursing. • The potential limitation of utilizing the COSMIN checklist for assessing methodological quality is worth considering. • Test-retest was considered inappropriate; thus, the reliability testing of ethical sensitivity measurement instruments still needs to be explored.

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
护理伦理敏感性测量工具的心理测量特性:系统综述。
背景:认识并适当应对伦理方面的考虑是护理伦理实践的关键要素。为了减少医疗保健中的伦理不协调现象,促进护士对其职业道德责任的理解,研究人员必须准确评估伦理敏感性。目的:本综述旨在系统评估用于测量护理伦理敏感性的工具的测量属性:2022 年 7 月,在以下电子数据库中进行了系统的文献检索:Scopus、CINAHL、APAPsycINFO、Embase、Web of Science 和 PubMed。两名审稿人根据基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准(COSMIN)核对表对研究进行了独立筛选和评估。采用最新的良好测量特性标准对测量特性结果进行评分,并采用修改后的建议评估、发展和评价分级法(GRADE)对总结的证据质量进行分级:本综述共包括 29 项研究,介绍了 11 种不同的工具。所有纳入的研究均未对跨文化有效性和响应性进行审查。虽然大多数工具都至少进行了某种有效性评估,但几乎所有的可靠性结果都不确定。建议使用两种工具,即护理专业学生伦理敏感性问卷(ESQ-NS)和重症监护病房护士伦理意识量表。建议根据项目反应理论(IRT)/Rasch 模型开发新的特殊护理环境自我管理工具:结论:可根据本系统综述的结论和建议,选择护理伦理敏感性测量工具,并进一步研究这些工具的开发、心理测量和跨文化适应性:- 本综述对 29 项研究中用于测量护理伦理敏感性的 11 种工具进行了评估。- 护生伦理敏感性问卷(ESQ-NS)和重症监护室护士伦理意识量表值得推荐,但还需要进一步的可靠性和跨文化有效性测试。- 此外,还推荐使用 IRT/Rasch 模型来测量护理人员的伦理敏感性。- 利用 COSMIN 核对表评估方法质量的潜在局限性值得考虑。- 重测被认为是不恰当的;因此,伦理敏感性测量工具的可靠性测试仍需探索。
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
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
期刊最新文献
Choice of primary healthcare providers among population in urban areas of low- and middle-income countries-a protocol for systematic review of literature. Computer-assisted screening in systematic evidence synthesis requires robust and well-evaluated stopping criteria. Patient-related prognostic factors for function and pain after shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. The psychometric properties of instruments measuring ethical sensitivity in nursing: a systematic review. Barriers and facilitators to enrollment in pediatric clinical trials: an overview of systematic reviews.
×
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