测量患者报告的实体器官移植医疗体验:针对特定条件和移植的衡量标准的范围界定审查

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY Transplantation Reviews Pub Date : 2024-07-15 DOI:10.1016/j.trre.2024.100872
Rebeka Jenkins , Ben Rimmer , Lorna Marson , Andrew J. Fisher , Linda Sharp , Catherine Exley
{"title":"测量患者报告的实体器官移植医疗体验:针对特定条件和移植的衡量标准的范围界定审查","authors":"Rebeka Jenkins ,&nbsp;Ben Rimmer ,&nbsp;Lorna Marson ,&nbsp;Andrew J. Fisher ,&nbsp;Linda Sharp ,&nbsp;Catherine Exley","doi":"10.1016/j.trre.2024.100872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Measures of patient experience are increasingly valued as key to healthcare quality assessment. We aimed to identify and describe publicly available measures assessing patient-reported experience of solid organ transplantation healthcare, and identify patient groups, healthcare settings, or aspects of patient experience underserved by existing measures.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus and Web of Science from inception to 6th July 2023; supplemented with grey literature searches. Two reviewers independently screened search hits; outputs reporting patient-reported measures of multiple aspects of established solid organ transplantation healthcare were eligible. We abstracted measure context, characteristics, content (i.e., attributes of patient experience assessed), and development and validation processes.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We identified nine outputs reporting eight measures of patient experience; these related only to kidney (<em>n</em> = 5) or liver (<em>n</em> = 3) transplantation, with no available measures relating to heart, lung, pancreas or intestinal transplantation. Of the identified measures, four were specific to solid organ transplant recipients. Measures sought to assess “patient satisfaction” (<em>n</em> = 4) and “patient experience” (n = 4) of healthcare. Measures mapped to between five and 16 of 20 attributes of patient experience, most often <em>Information and education</em>, <em>Communication,</em> and <em>Access to care</em> (all <em>n</em> = 7). Six measures reported a development process, only three reported a validation process.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Publicly available patient-reported measures of organ transplantation healthcare experiences are limited to kidney and liver transplantation. There is heterogeneity in measure context, characteristics, and content, and insufficient clarity concerning how well measures capture the specific experiences of transplant recipients. Formalised measures of patient experience, specific to solid organ transplantation, with transparent reporting of development and validity are needed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48973,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation Reviews","volume":"38 4","pages":"Article 100872"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955470X24000557/pdfft?md5=7aff97411bd1a3e8379bb5a877323594&pid=1-s2.0-S0955470X24000557-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring patient-reported experience of solid organ transplantation healthcare: A scoping review of condition- and transplant-specific measures\",\"authors\":\"Rebeka Jenkins ,&nbsp;Ben Rimmer ,&nbsp;Lorna Marson ,&nbsp;Andrew J. Fisher ,&nbsp;Linda Sharp ,&nbsp;Catherine Exley\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.trre.2024.100872\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Measures of patient experience are increasingly valued as key to healthcare quality assessment. We aimed to identify and describe publicly available measures assessing patient-reported experience of solid organ transplantation healthcare, and identify patient groups, healthcare settings, or aspects of patient experience underserved by existing measures.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus and Web of Science from inception to 6th July 2023; supplemented with grey literature searches. Two reviewers independently screened search hits; outputs reporting patient-reported measures of multiple aspects of established solid organ transplantation healthcare were eligible. We abstracted measure context, characteristics, content (i.e., attributes of patient experience assessed), and development and validation processes.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We identified nine outputs reporting eight measures of patient experience; these related only to kidney (<em>n</em> = 5) or liver (<em>n</em> = 3) transplantation, with no available measures relating to heart, lung, pancreas or intestinal transplantation. Of the identified measures, four were specific to solid organ transplant recipients. Measures sought to assess “patient satisfaction” (<em>n</em> = 4) and “patient experience” (n = 4) of healthcare. Measures mapped to between five and 16 of 20 attributes of patient experience, most often <em>Information and education</em>, <em>Communication,</em> and <em>Access to care</em> (all <em>n</em> = 7). Six measures reported a development process, only three reported a validation process.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Publicly available patient-reported measures of organ transplantation healthcare experiences are limited to kidney and liver transplantation. There is heterogeneity in measure context, characteristics, and content, and insufficient clarity concerning how well measures capture the specific experiences of transplant recipients. Formalised measures of patient experience, specific to solid organ transplantation, with transparent reporting of development and validity are needed.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48973,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transplantation Reviews\",\"volume\":\"38 4\",\"pages\":\"Article 100872\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955470X24000557/pdfft?md5=7aff97411bd1a3e8379bb5a877323594&pid=1-s2.0-S0955470X24000557-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transplantation Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955470X24000557\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955470X24000557","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景患者体验评估作为医疗质量评估的关键日益受到重视。我们旨在确定并描述评估患者报告的实体器官移植医疗体验的公开可用措施,并确定现有措施未充分服务的患者群体、医疗环境或患者体验的各个方面。方法我们系统地检索了从开始到 2023 年 7 月 6 日的 MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、PsycINFO、Cochrane CENTRAL、Scopus 和 Web of Science;并辅以灰色文献检索。两名审稿人分别独立筛选检索结果;符合条件的结果报告了患者报告的对已建立的实体器官移植医疗保健的多个方面的测量结果。我们摘录了衡量标准的背景、特征、内容(即评估的患者体验属性)以及开发和验证过程。结果我们确定了九项成果,报告了八项患者体验衡量标准;这些衡量标准仅与肾脏(5 项)或肝脏(3 项)移植有关,没有与心脏、肺、胰腺或肠道移植有关的可用衡量标准。在已确定的衡量标准中,有四项专门针对实体器官移植受者。措施旨在评估医疗保健的 "患者满意度"(4 项)和 "患者体验"(4 项)。在患者体验的 20 项属性中,有 5 至 16 项与之对应,最常见的是信息与教育、沟通和获得护理(均为 7 项)。六项措施报告了开发过程,只有三项报告了验证过程。在衡量标准的背景、特征和内容方面存在差异,在衡量标准如何反映器官移植受者的具体经历方面也不够明确。我们需要针对实体器官移植对患者体验进行正式测量,并对开发和有效性进行透明报告。
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
Measuring patient-reported experience of solid organ transplantation healthcare: A scoping review of condition- and transplant-specific measures

Background

Measures of patient experience are increasingly valued as key to healthcare quality assessment. We aimed to identify and describe publicly available measures assessing patient-reported experience of solid organ transplantation healthcare, and identify patient groups, healthcare settings, or aspects of patient experience underserved by existing measures.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus and Web of Science from inception to 6th July 2023; supplemented with grey literature searches. Two reviewers independently screened search hits; outputs reporting patient-reported measures of multiple aspects of established solid organ transplantation healthcare were eligible. We abstracted measure context, characteristics, content (i.e., attributes of patient experience assessed), and development and validation processes.

Results

We identified nine outputs reporting eight measures of patient experience; these related only to kidney (n = 5) or liver (n = 3) transplantation, with no available measures relating to heart, lung, pancreas or intestinal transplantation. Of the identified measures, four were specific to solid organ transplant recipients. Measures sought to assess “patient satisfaction” (n = 4) and “patient experience” (n = 4) of healthcare. Measures mapped to between five and 16 of 20 attributes of patient experience, most often Information and education, Communication, and Access to care (all n = 7). Six measures reported a development process, only three reported a validation process.

Conclusions

Publicly available patient-reported measures of organ transplantation healthcare experiences are limited to kidney and liver transplantation. There is heterogeneity in measure context, characteristics, and content, and insufficient clarity concerning how well measures capture the specific experiences of transplant recipients. Formalised measures of patient experience, specific to solid organ transplantation, with transparent reporting of development and validity are needed.

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
Transplantation Reviews
Transplantation Reviews IMMUNOLOGY-TRANSPLANTATION
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
40
审稿时长
29 days
期刊介绍: Transplantation Reviews contains state-of-the-art review articles on both clinical and experimental transplantation. The journal features invited articles by authorities in immunology, transplantation medicine and surgery.
期刊最新文献
Complement and complement regulatory protein in allogeneic and xenogeneic kidney transplantation Frailty serves as an adverse predictor for mortality in liver transplant candidates: A systematic review and meta-analysis Outcomes of kidney replacement therapies after kidney transplant failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in solid organ transplant recipients: Current therapeutic and screening strategies Factors and interventions affecting tacrolimus intrapatient variability: A systematic review and meta-analysis
×
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