Kristin Vassbotn Guldhav, John Roger Andersen, Kari Eldal, Tonje Lundeby, Pål Andre Hegland
{"title":"在使用 FAMCARE 量表评估护理人员对癌症护理满意度的研究中,报告量表结构和总结得分的做法:范围综述》。","authors":"Kristin Vassbotn Guldhav, John Roger Andersen, Kari Eldal, Tonje Lundeby, Pål Andre Hegland","doi":"10.2147/PROM.S479195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Satisfaction with care is a concept quantified through diverse measurement tools. However, studies have indicated that measuring satisfaction is challenging due to the construct's multidimensional expression. Thus, obtaining valid results requires careful consideration of the construct's nature and measurement methods.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The primary aim of this study was to examine how studies involving cancer caregivers have addressed the dimensionality of the construct when using satisfaction with care as an outcome, and whether this is reflected in the score reporting practices. We chose to investigate this by conducting a scoping review of the measurement tool Family Satisfaction with End-of-Life Care Scale (FAMCARE Scale), where scores can be reported as the mean of overall score, subscale scores and single-item scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review consisted of systematic searches using Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos. Two researchers used the Rayyan Qatar Computing Research Institute system to perform a blinded screening process. We extracted information on study design, purpose, evaluating of structural validity, variations in the type of scores reported, and justification for choosing the type(s) of scores that were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-three studies were included in the review, and their designs and reporting practices of score type varied substantially. Five studies reported analyses to test the scale's structural validity. Ten studies provided a justification for their choice of reporting method. The most common reporting practice found was using mean of overall scores, present in 20 of the included studies. Twelve studies reported mean of subscale scores, and ten reported single-item mean scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found substantial variability in score reporting practices, highlighting the need for a more in-depth understanding and reflection on the multidimensional nature of caregiver satisfaction.</p>","PeriodicalId":19747,"journal":{"name":"Patient Related Outcome Measures","volume":"15 ","pages":"271-286"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11556242/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Practices for Reporting Scale Structure and Summarizing Scores in Studies Using FAMCARE Scale to Assess Caregiver Satisfaction with Cancer Care: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Kristin Vassbotn Guldhav, John Roger Andersen, Kari Eldal, Tonje Lundeby, Pål Andre Hegland\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/PROM.S479195\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Satisfaction with care is a concept quantified through diverse measurement tools. However, studies have indicated that measuring satisfaction is challenging due to the construct's multidimensional expression. Thus, obtaining valid results requires careful consideration of the construct's nature and measurement methods.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The primary aim of this study was to examine how studies involving cancer caregivers have addressed the dimensionality of the construct when using satisfaction with care as an outcome, and whether this is reflected in the score reporting practices. We chose to investigate this by conducting a scoping review of the measurement tool Family Satisfaction with End-of-Life Care Scale (FAMCARE Scale), where scores can be reported as the mean of overall score, subscale scores and single-item scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review consisted of systematic searches using Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos. Two researchers used the Rayyan Qatar Computing Research Institute system to perform a blinded screening process. We extracted information on study design, purpose, evaluating of structural validity, variations in the type of scores reported, and justification for choosing the type(s) of scores that were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-three studies were included in the review, and their designs and reporting practices of score type varied substantially. Five studies reported analyses to test the scale's structural validity. Ten studies provided a justification for their choice of reporting method. The most common reporting practice found was using mean of overall scores, present in 20 of the included studies. Twelve studies reported mean of subscale scores, and ten reported single-item mean scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found substantial variability in score reporting practices, highlighting the need for a more in-depth understanding and reflection on the multidimensional nature of caregiver satisfaction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19747,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient Related Outcome Measures\",\"volume\":\"15 \",\"pages\":\"271-286\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11556242/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient Related Outcome Measures\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S479195\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient Related Outcome Measures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S479195","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Practices for Reporting Scale Structure and Summarizing Scores in Studies Using FAMCARE Scale to Assess Caregiver Satisfaction with Cancer Care: A Scoping Review.
Background: Satisfaction with care is a concept quantified through diverse measurement tools. However, studies have indicated that measuring satisfaction is challenging due to the construct's multidimensional expression. Thus, obtaining valid results requires careful consideration of the construct's nature and measurement methods.
Purpose: The primary aim of this study was to examine how studies involving cancer caregivers have addressed the dimensionality of the construct when using satisfaction with care as an outcome, and whether this is reflected in the score reporting practices. We chose to investigate this by conducting a scoping review of the measurement tool Family Satisfaction with End-of-Life Care Scale (FAMCARE Scale), where scores can be reported as the mean of overall score, subscale scores and single-item scores.
Methods: This scoping review consisted of systematic searches using Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos. Two researchers used the Rayyan Qatar Computing Research Institute system to perform a blinded screening process. We extracted information on study design, purpose, evaluating of structural validity, variations in the type of scores reported, and justification for choosing the type(s) of scores that were analyzed.
Results: Twenty-three studies were included in the review, and their designs and reporting practices of score type varied substantially. Five studies reported analyses to test the scale's structural validity. Ten studies provided a justification for their choice of reporting method. The most common reporting practice found was using mean of overall scores, present in 20 of the included studies. Twelve studies reported mean of subscale scores, and ten reported single-item mean scores.
Conclusion: We found substantial variability in score reporting practices, highlighting the need for a more in-depth understanding and reflection on the multidimensional nature of caregiver satisfaction.