在结直肠癌筛查的社会心理后果中PROMs的方法学质量:一项系统综述。

IF 1.8 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Patient Related Outcome Measures Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.2147/PROM.S394247
Emma Grundtvig Gram, Jessica Á Rogvi, Anders Heiberg Agerbeck, Frederik Martiny, Anne Katrine Lykke Bie, John Brandt Brodersen
{"title":"在结直肠癌筛查的社会心理后果中PROMs的方法学质量:一项系统综述。","authors":"Emma Grundtvig Gram,&nbsp;Jessica Á Rogvi,&nbsp;Anders Heiberg Agerbeck,&nbsp;Frederik Martiny,&nbsp;Anne Katrine Lykke Bie,&nbsp;John Brandt Brodersen","doi":"10.2147/PROM.S394247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aimed to assess the adequacy of measurement properties in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used to quantify psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening among adults at average risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched four databases for eligible studies: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase. Our approach was inclusive and encompassed all empirical studies that quantified aspects of psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. We assessed the adequacy of PROM development and measurement properties for content validity using The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 33 studies that all together used 30 different outcome measures. Two PROMs (6.7%) were developed in a colorectal cancer screening context. COSMIN rating for PROM development was inadequate for 29 out of 30 PROMs (97%). PROMs lacked proper cognitive interviews and pilot studies and therefore had no proven content validity. According to the COSMIN checklist, 27 out of 30 PROMs (90%) had inadequate measurement properties for content validity.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The majority of included PROMs had inadequate development and measurement properties. These findings shed light on the trustworthiness of the included studies' findings and call for reevaluation of existing evidence on the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. To provide trustworthy evidence about the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening, editors could require that studies provide evidence of the methodological quality of the PROM. Alternatively, authors should transparently disclose their studies' methodological limitations in measuring psychosocial consequences of screening validly.</p>","PeriodicalId":19747,"journal":{"name":"Patient Related Outcome Measures","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/83/86/prom-14-31.PMC10024469.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methodological Quality of PROMs in Psychosocial Consequences of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Emma Grundtvig Gram,&nbsp;Jessica Á Rogvi,&nbsp;Anders Heiberg Agerbeck,&nbsp;Frederik Martiny,&nbsp;Anne Katrine Lykke Bie,&nbsp;John Brandt Brodersen\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/PROM.S394247\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aimed to assess the adequacy of measurement properties in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used to quantify psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening among adults at average risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched four databases for eligible studies: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase. Our approach was inclusive and encompassed all empirical studies that quantified aspects of psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. We assessed the adequacy of PROM development and measurement properties for content validity using The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 33 studies that all together used 30 different outcome measures. Two PROMs (6.7%) were developed in a colorectal cancer screening context. COSMIN rating for PROM development was inadequate for 29 out of 30 PROMs (97%). PROMs lacked proper cognitive interviews and pilot studies and therefore had no proven content validity. According to the COSMIN checklist, 27 out of 30 PROMs (90%) had inadequate measurement properties for content validity.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The majority of included PROMs had inadequate development and measurement properties. These findings shed light on the trustworthiness of the included studies' findings and call for reevaluation of existing evidence on the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. To provide trustworthy evidence about the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening, editors could require that studies provide evidence of the methodological quality of the PROM. Alternatively, authors should transparently disclose their studies' methodological limitations in measuring psychosocial consequences of screening validly.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19747,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient Related Outcome Measures\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/83/86/prom-14-31.PMC10024469.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient Related Outcome Measures\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S394247\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"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.S394247","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:本系统综述旨在评估用于量化平均风险成人结直肠癌筛查的心理社会后果的患者报告结果测量(PROMs)测量特性的充分性。方法:我们检索了MEDLINE、CINAHL、PsycINFO和Embase四个符合条件的数据库。我们的方法是包容性的,包含了所有量化结直肠癌筛查的心理社会后果的实证研究。我们使用基于共识的健康测量仪器选择标准(COSMIN)偏倚风险检查表评估了PROM开发的充分性和内容效度的测量特性。结果:我们纳入了33项研究,总共使用了30种不同的结果测量方法。2例PROMs(6.7%)发生在结直肠癌筛查背景下。在30个PROM中,有29个(97%)的PROM开发的COSMIN评级不足。prom缺乏适当的认知访谈和试点研究,因此没有被证明的内容效度。根据COSMIN检查表,30个prom中有27个(90%)对内容效度的测量特性不充分。讨论:大多数包含的prom具有不充分的开发和测量特性。这些发现阐明了纳入研究结果的可信度,并呼吁重新评估结直肠癌筛查的社会心理后果的现有证据。为了提供关于结直肠癌筛查的社会心理后果的可靠证据,编辑可以要求研究提供PROM方法学质量的证据。或者,作者应该透明地披露他们的研究在有效测量筛查的社会心理后果方面的方法学局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Methodological Quality of PROMs in Psychosocial Consequences of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

Objective: This systematic review aimed to assess the adequacy of measurement properties in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used to quantify psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening among adults at average risk.

Methods: We searched four databases for eligible studies: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase. Our approach was inclusive and encompassed all empirical studies that quantified aspects of psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. We assessed the adequacy of PROM development and measurement properties for content validity using The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist.

Results: We included 33 studies that all together used 30 different outcome measures. Two PROMs (6.7%) were developed in a colorectal cancer screening context. COSMIN rating for PROM development was inadequate for 29 out of 30 PROMs (97%). PROMs lacked proper cognitive interviews and pilot studies and therefore had no proven content validity. According to the COSMIN checklist, 27 out of 30 PROMs (90%) had inadequate measurement properties for content validity.

Discussion: The majority of included PROMs had inadequate development and measurement properties. These findings shed light on the trustworthiness of the included studies' findings and call for reevaluation of existing evidence on the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. To provide trustworthy evidence about the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening, editors could require that studies provide evidence of the methodological quality of the PROM. Alternatively, authors should transparently disclose their studies' methodological limitations in measuring psychosocial consequences of screening validly.

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
Patient Related Outcome Measures
Patient Related Outcome Measures HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
自引率
4.80%
发文量
27
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Development and Content Validation of the Patient's Qualitative Assessment of Treatment - Real-World (PQAT-RW): An Instrument to Evaluate Benefits and Disadvantages of Treatments in Real-World Settings. Exploring Barriers to Effective COVID-19 Risk Mitigation, Recovery, and Chronic Disease Self-Management: A Qualitative Multilevel Perspective. Ultra-Low Frequency Transmitted Ultrasound Breast Imaging vs DBT (Digital Breast Tomosynthesis): A Patient-Reported Outcome Study. Systematic Literature Review of Studies Reporting Measures of Functional Outcome or Quality of Life in People with Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia. Validation and Cultural Adaptation of the Sinhala Translation of the Cardiff Acne Disability Index (CADI).
×
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