寻找评估中风知识的金标准工具:一项系统综述。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neuroepidemiology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-18 DOI:10.1159/000535292
Lachlan L Dalli, Catherine Burns, Monique F Kilkenny, Seana L Gall, Wen-Hsuan Hou, Tammy C Hoffmann, Muideen T Olaiya, Jan Cameron, Tara Purvis, Amanda G Thrift, Mark R Nelson, Andrea Sanders, Kayla Viney, Hoang T Phan, Rosanne Freak-Poli
{"title":"寻找评估中风知识的金标准工具:一项系统综述。","authors":"Lachlan L Dalli, Catherine Burns, Monique F Kilkenny, Seana L Gall, Wen-Hsuan Hou, Tammy C Hoffmann, Muideen T Olaiya, Jan Cameron, Tara Purvis, Amanda G Thrift, Mark R Nelson, Andrea Sanders, Kayla Viney, Hoang T Phan, Rosanne Freak-Poli","doi":"10.1159/000535292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Knowledge of stroke is essential to empower people to reduce their risk of these events. However, valid tools are required for accurate and reliable measurement of stroke knowledge. We aimed to systematically review contemporary stroke knowledge assessment tools and appraise their content validity, feasibility, and measurement properties.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023403566). Electronic databases (MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched to identify published articles (1 January 2015-1 March 2023), in which stroke knowledge was assessed using a validated tool. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts prior to undertaking full-text review. COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methods guided the appraisal of content validity (relevance, comprehensiveness, comprehensibility), feasibility, and measurement properties.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After removing duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 718 articles were screened; 323 reviewed in full; with 42 included (N = 23 unique stroke knowledge tools). For content validity, all tools were relevant, two were comprehensive, and seven were comprehensible. Validation metrics were reported for internal consistency (n = 20 tools), construct validity (n = 17 tools), cross-cultural validity (n = 15 tools), responsiveness (n = 9 tools), reliability (n = 7 tools), structural validity (n = 3 tools), and measurement error (n = 1 tool). The Stroke Knowledge Test met all content validity criteria, with validation data for six measurement properties (n = 3 rated \"Sufficient\").</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Assessment of stroke knowledge is not standardised and many tools lacked validated content or measurement properties. The Stroke Knowledge Test was the most comprehensive but requires updating and further validation for endorsement as a gold standard.</p>","PeriodicalId":54730,"journal":{"name":"Neuroepidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In Search of a Gold Standard Tool for Assessing Knowledge of Stroke: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Lachlan L Dalli, Catherine Burns, Monique F Kilkenny, Seana L Gall, Wen-Hsuan Hou, Tammy C Hoffmann, Muideen T Olaiya, Jan Cameron, Tara Purvis, Amanda G Thrift, Mark R Nelson, Andrea Sanders, Kayla Viney, Hoang T Phan, Rosanne Freak-Poli\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000535292\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Knowledge of stroke is essential to empower people to reduce their risk of these events. However, valid tools are required for accurate and reliable measurement of stroke knowledge. We aimed to systematically review contemporary stroke knowledge assessment tools and appraise their content validity, feasibility, and measurement properties.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023403566). Electronic databases (MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched to identify published articles (1 January 2015-1 March 2023), in which stroke knowledge was assessed using a validated tool. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts prior to undertaking full-text review. COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methods guided the appraisal of content validity (relevance, comprehensiveness, comprehensibility), feasibility, and measurement properties.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After removing duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 718 articles were screened; 323 reviewed in full; with 42 included (N = 23 unique stroke knowledge tools). For content validity, all tools were relevant, two were comprehensive, and seven were comprehensible. Validation metrics were reported for internal consistency (n = 20 tools), construct validity (n = 17 tools), cross-cultural validity (n = 15 tools), responsiveness (n = 9 tools), reliability (n = 7 tools), structural validity (n = 3 tools), and measurement error (n = 1 tool). The Stroke Knowledge Test met all content validity criteria, with validation data for six measurement properties (n = 3 rated \\\"Sufficient\\\").</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Assessment of stroke knowledge is not standardised and many tools lacked validated content or measurement properties. The Stroke Knowledge Test was the most comprehensive but requires updating and further validation for endorsement as a gold standard.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54730,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuroepidemiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuroepidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000535292\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroepidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000535292","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:卒中知识对于增强人们减少卒中风险至关重要。然而,有效的工具需要准确和可靠的测量行程知识。我们旨在系统地回顾当代中风知识评估工具,并评估其内容效度、可行性和测量特性。方法:该方案在PROSPERO (CRD42023403566)中注册。检索电子数据库(MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science)以确定已发表的文章(2015年1月1日至2023年3月1日),其中使用经过验证的工具评估卒中知识。在进行全文审查之前,两位审稿人独立筛选标题和摘要。基于共识的卫生测量仪器选择标准(COSMIN)方法指导了内容效度(相关性、全面性、可理解性)、可行性和测量特性的评估。结果:剔除重复后,筛选出718篇文献的标题和摘要;323项已被完整审阅;包括42个(N=23个独特的笔画知识工具)。对于内容效度,所有工具都是相关的,两个是全面的,六个是可理解的。报告了内部一致性(n=20个工具)、结构效度(n=17个工具)、跨文化效度(n=15个工具)、响应性(n=9个工具)、信度(n=7个工具)、结构效度(n=3个工具)和测量误差(n=1个工具)的验证指标。卒中知识测试符合所有内容效度标准,有六个测量属性的验证数据(n=3被评为“充分”)。结论:脑卒中知识的评估不标准化,许多工具缺乏有效的内容或测量特性。中风知识测试是最全面的,但需要更新和进一步验证作为金标准的认可。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
In Search of a Gold Standard Tool for Assessing Knowledge of Stroke: A Systematic Review.

Background: Knowledge of stroke is essential to empower people to reduce their risk of these events. However, valid tools are required for accurate and reliable measurement of stroke knowledge. We aimed to systematically review contemporary stroke knowledge assessment tools and appraise their content validity, feasibility, and measurement properties.

Methods: The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023403566). Electronic databases (MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched to identify published articles (1 January 2015-1 March 2023), in which stroke knowledge was assessed using a validated tool. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts prior to undertaking full-text review. COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methods guided the appraisal of content validity (relevance, comprehensiveness, comprehensibility), feasibility, and measurement properties.

Results: After removing duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 718 articles were screened; 323 reviewed in full; with 42 included (N = 23 unique stroke knowledge tools). For content validity, all tools were relevant, two were comprehensive, and seven were comprehensible. Validation metrics were reported for internal consistency (n = 20 tools), construct validity (n = 17 tools), cross-cultural validity (n = 15 tools), responsiveness (n = 9 tools), reliability (n = 7 tools), structural validity (n = 3 tools), and measurement error (n = 1 tool). The Stroke Knowledge Test met all content validity criteria, with validation data for six measurement properties (n = 3 rated "Sufficient").

Conclusion: Assessment of stroke knowledge is not standardised and many tools lacked validated content or measurement properties. The Stroke Knowledge Test was the most comprehensive but requires updating and further validation for endorsement as a gold standard.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neuroepidemiology
Neuroepidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
1.80%
发文量
49
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Neuroepidemiology'' is the only internationally recognised peer-reviewed periodical devoted to descriptive, analytical and experimental studies in the epidemiology of neurologic disease. The scope of the journal expands the boundaries of traditional clinical neurology by providing new insights regarding the etiology, determinants, distribution, management and prevention of diseases of the nervous system.
期刊最新文献
Prevalence, incidence, and mortality of Myasthenia Gravis and myasthenic syndromes: a systematic review. Strength of Association between Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Neurological Disorders in Children: A Case-Control Study. Low sun exposure is associated with both progressive-onset and relapse-onset multiple sclerosis risk: a case-control study. Changing Epidemiology of Neurological Diseases in Africa. Insights from ARCOS-V's Transition to Remote Data Collection During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Descriptive Study.
×
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