Psychometric Properties of Patient-reported Outcome Measures to Assess Resilience in Individuals with Musculoskeletal Pain or Rheumatic Conditions: A COSMIN-based Systematic Review.
Dayana Patricia Rosa, Marc-Olivier Dubé, Jean-Sébastien Roy
{"title":"Psychometric Properties of Patient-reported Outcome Measures to Assess Resilience in Individuals with Musculoskeletal Pain or Rheumatic Conditions: A COSMIN-based Systematic Review.","authors":"Dayana Patricia Rosa, Marc-Olivier Dubé, Jean-Sébastien Roy","doi":"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess resilience in individuals with musculoskeletal and rheumatic conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) were searched. Studies assessing any measurement property in the target populations were included. Two reviewers independently screened all studies and assessed the risk of bias using the COSMIN checklist. Thereafter, each measurement property of each PROM was classified as sufficient, insufficient, or inconsistent based on the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four families of PROMs [Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS); Resilience Scale (RS-18); Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC-2); and Pain Resilience Scale (PRS-14 and PRS-12)] were identified from the 9 included studies. Even if no PROM showed sufficient evidence for all measurement properties, the PRS and CD-RISC had the most properties evaluated and showed the best measurement properties, although responsiveness still needs to be assessed for both PROMs. Both PROMs showed good levels of reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation 0.61 to 0.8) and good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ≥0.70). Minimal detectable change values were 24.5% for PRS and between 4.7% and 29.8% for CD-RISC.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Although BRCS, RS-18, CD-RISC, and PRS have been used to evaluate resilience in individuals with musculoskeletal and rheumatic conditions, the current evidence only supports the use of PRS and CD-RISC in this population. Further methodological studies are therefore needed and should prioritize the assessment of reliability and responsiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":50678,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":"695-706"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001162","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess resilience in individuals with musculoskeletal and rheumatic conditions.
Methods: Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) were searched. Studies assessing any measurement property in the target populations were included. Two reviewers independently screened all studies and assessed the risk of bias using the COSMIN checklist. Thereafter, each measurement property of each PROM was classified as sufficient, insufficient, or inconsistent based on the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties.
Results: Four families of PROMs [Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS); Resilience Scale (RS-18); Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC-2); and Pain Resilience Scale (PRS-14 and PRS-12)] were identified from the 9 included studies. Even if no PROM showed sufficient evidence for all measurement properties, the PRS and CD-RISC had the most properties evaluated and showed the best measurement properties, although responsiveness still needs to be assessed for both PROMs. Both PROMs showed good levels of reliability (intraclass coefficient correlation 0.61 to 0.8) and good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ≥0.70). Minimal detectable change values were 24.5% for PRS and between 4.7% and 29.8% for CD-RISC.
Discussion: Although BRCS, RS-18, CD-RISC, and PRS have been used to evaluate resilience in individuals with musculoskeletal and rheumatic conditions, the current evidence only supports the use of PRS and CD-RISC in this population. Further methodological studies are therefore needed and should prioritize the assessment of reliability and responsiveness.
目的:本系统综述的目的是全面概述用于评估肌肉骨骼和风湿病患者恢复力的患者报告结果测量(PROM)的测量特性。方法:检索MEDLINE、CINAHL、PsycINFO、Web of Science四个电子数据库。包括评估目标人群中任何测量特性的研究。两名评审员独立筛选了所有研究,并使用COSMIN检查表评估了偏倚风险。此后,根据良好测量特性的COSMIN标准,将每个PROM的每个测量特性分类为充分、不充分或不一致。结果:从9项纳入的研究中确定了4个PROM家族(简要弹性应对量表[BRCS];弹性量表[RS-18];康纳·戴维森弹性量表[CDRISC-10和CD-RISC-2];疼痛弹性量表[PRS-14和PRS-12])。即使没有PROM显示出所有测量性能的充分证据,PRS和CD-RISC也具有最多的性能评估,并显示出最佳的测量性能;尽管仍然需要对两种PROM的响应性进行评估。两种PROM均显示出良好的可靠性(组内系数相关性0.61至0.8)和良好的内部一致性(Cronbachα≥0.70)。PRS的最小可检测变化值为24.5%,CD-RISC的最小检测变化值在4.7%至29.8%之间。讨论:尽管BRCS、RS-18、CD-RISC或PRS已用于评估肌肉骨骼和风湿性疾病患者的恢复力,但目前的证据仅支持在该人群中使用PRS或CD-RISC。因此,需要进行进一步的方法研究,并应优先评估可靠性和反应性。
期刊介绍:
The Clinical Journal of Pain explores all aspects of pain and its effective treatment, bringing readers the insights of leading anesthesiologists, surgeons, internists, neurologists, orthopedists, psychiatrists and psychologists, clinical pharmacologists, and rehabilitation medicine specialists. This peer-reviewed journal presents timely and thought-provoking articles on clinical dilemmas in pain management; valuable diagnostic procedures; promising new pharmacological, surgical, and other therapeutic modalities; psychosocial dimensions of pain; and ethical issues of concern to all medical professionals. The journal also publishes Special Topic issues on subjects of particular relevance to the practice of pain medicine.