Measurement instruments to evaluate diaper dermatitis in children: Systematic review of measurement properties.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aim
The aim of this study was to summarize and evaluate the empirical evidence on the measurement properties of diaper dermatitis (DD) measurement instruments in children.Design
Systematic review.Methods
MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE were systematically searched until 14 June 2021. Citation searching was conducted in Scopus. The risk of bias, the reported measurement properties and the quality of evidence were evaluated using the COSMIN framework. The reporting follows the PRISMA 2020 statement.Results
We identified 1200 records in the databases and 108 records during citation searching and included four studies describing three measurement instruments for DD in children and their measurement properties. We considered the content validity inconsistent for all three instruments. The study authors reported internal consistency, reliability and construct validity for one instrument. We rated the quality of evidence from very low to moderate.
SUBMITTER: Reick S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10416076 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Measurement instruments to evaluate diaper dermatitis in children: Systematic review of measurement properties.
Reick Sibylle S Burckhardt Marion M Palm Rebecca R Kottner Jan J
Nursing open 20230520 9
<h4>Aim</h4>The aim of this study was to summarize and evaluate the empirical evidence on the measurement properties of diaper dermatitis (DD) measurement instruments in children.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review.<h4>Methods</h4>MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE were systematically searched until 14 June 2021. Citation searching was conducted in Scopus. The risk of bias, the reported measurement properties and the quality of evidence were evaluated using the COSMIN framework. The reporting follows the P ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe internet is now a major source of health information. With the growth of internet users, eHealth literacy has emerged as a new concept for digital health care. Therefore, health professionals need to consider the eHealth literacy of consumers when providing care utilizing digital health technologies.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify currently available eHealth literacy instruments and evaluate their measurement properties to provide robust evidence to researchers and clinicians who are selecting an eHealth literacy instrument.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of self-reported eHealth literacy instruments by applying the updated COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) methodology.ResultsThis study included 7 instruments from 41 articles describing 57 psychometric studies, as identified in 4 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo). No eHealth literacy instrument provided evidence for all measurement properties. The eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS) was originally developed with a single-factor structure under the definition of eHealth literacy before the rise of social media and the mobile web. That instrument was evaluated in 18 different languages and 26 countries, involving diverse populations. However, various other factor structures were exhibited: 7 types of two-factor structures, 3 types of three-factor structures, and 1 bifactor structure. The transactional eHealth literacy instrument (TeHLI) was developed to reflect the broader concept of eHealth literacy and was demonstrated to have a sufficient low-quality and very low-quality evidence for content validity (relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility) and sufficient high-quality evidence for structural validity and internal consistency; however, that instrument has rarely been evaluated.ConclusionsThe eHealth literacy scale was the most frequently investigated instrument. However, it is strongly recommended that the instrument's content be updated to reflect recent advancements in digital health technologies. In addition, the transactional eHealth literacy instrument needs improvements in content validity and further psychometric studies to increase the credibility of its synthesized evidence.
| S-EPMC8663713 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimThe aim of the present study was to identify systematically the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome instruments (PROs) that evaluate adherence to inhaled maintenance medication in adults with asthma.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of six databases. Two reviewers independently included studies on the measurement properties of PROs that evaluated adherence in asthmatic participants aged ≥18 years. Based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN), the reviewers: (i) extracted data on internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, content validity, structural validity, hypotheses testing, cross-cultural validity, criterion validity and responsiveness; (ii) assessed the methodological quality of the included studies; (iii) assessed the quality of the measurement properties (positive or negative); and (iv) summarized the level of evidence (limited, moderate or strong).ResultsWe screened 6068 records and included 15 studies (14 PROs). No studies evaluated measurement error or responsiveness. Based on methodological and measurement property quality assessments, we found limited positive evidence of: (i) internal consistency of the Adherence Questionnaire, Refined Medication Adherence Reason (MAR) scale, Medication Adherence Report Scale for Asthma (MARS-A) and Test of the Adherence to Inhalers (TAI); (ii) reliability of the TAI; and (iii) structural validity of the adherence questionnaire, MAR scale, MARS-A and TAI. We also found limited negative evidence of: (i) hypotheses testing of the Adherence Questionnaire; (ii) reliability of the MARS-A; and (iii) criterion validity of the MARS-A and TAI.ConclusionsOur results highlighted the need to conduct further high-quality studies to evaluate the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the available PROs.
| S-EPMC6089817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Policy Points: Investigations on systematic methodologies for measuring integrated care should coincide with the growing interest in this field of research. A systematic review of instruments provides insights into integrated care measurement, including setting the research agenda for validating available instruments and informing the decision to develop new ones. This study is the first systematic review of instruments measuring integrated care with an evidence synthesis of the measurement properties. We found 209 index instruments measuring different constructs related to integrated care; the strength of evidence on the adequacy of the majority of their measurement properties remained largely unassessed.ContextIntegrated care is an important strategy for increasing health system performance. Despite its growing significance, detailed evidence on the measurement properties of integrated care instruments remains vague and limited. Our systematic review aims to provide evidence on the state of the art in measuring integrated care.MethodsOur comprehensive systematic review framework builds on the Rainbow Model for Integrated Care (RMIC). We searched MEDLINE/PubMed for published articles on the measurement properties of instruments measuring integrated care and identified eligible articles using a standard set of selection criteria. We assessed the methodological quality of every validation study reported using the COSMIN checklist and extracted data on study and instrument characteristics. We also evaluated the measurement properties of each examined instrument per validation study and provided a best evidence synthesis on the adequacy of measurement properties of the index instruments.FindingsFrom the 300 eligible articles, we assessed the methodological quality of 379 validation studies from which we identified 209 index instruments measuring integrated care constructs. The majority of studies reported on instruments measuring constructs related to care integration (33%) and patient-centered care (49%); fewer studies measured care continuity/comprehensive care (15%) and care coordination/case management (3%). We mapped 84% of the measured constructs to the clinical integration domain of the RMIC, with fewer constructs related to the domains of professional (3.7%), organizational (3.4%), and functional (0.5%) integration. Only 8% of the instruments were mapped to a combination of domains; none were mapped exclusively to the system or normative integration domains. The majority of instruments were administered to either patients (60%) or health care providers (20%). Of the measurement properties, responsiveness (4%), measurement error (7%), and criterion (12%) and cross-cultural validity (14%) were less commonly reported. We found <50% of the validation studies to be of good or excellent quality for any of the measurement properties. Only a minority of index instruments showed strong evidence of positive findings for internal consistency (15%), content validity (19%), and structural validity (7%); with moderate evidence of positive findings for internal consistency (14%) and construct validity (14%).ConclusionsOur results suggest that the quality of measurement properties of instruments measuring integrated care is in need of improvement with the less-studied constructs and domains to become part of newly developed instruments.
| S-EPMC5192798 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although many instruments are used to assess the families of people with diabetes, their measurement properties have not been systematically reviewed. We aimed to identify and evaluate the psychometric properties of the instruments used to assess family functioning in adults with diabetes.MethodsA systematic literature review, according to the JBI systematic reviews of measurement properties, was conducted using different databases, including gray literature. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021239733. Two independent reviewers searched, screened, and assessed the risk of bias among the articles according to the COSMIN methodology. The quality of each included instrument was assessed using the updated criteria for good measurement properties.ResultsEighty-one studies were included, and thirty-one eligible instruments were identified. The psychometric properties frequently assessed were structural validity, internal consistency, and construct validity.ConclusionsAlthough 31 instruments were included, none of their psychometric properties were scored as "very good". From the instruments scored as adequate on development and content validity, five stood out for their quality appraisal.. The development of new instruments is not recommended. More studies should be conducted on the existing instruments to assess the less commonly evaluated psychometric properties. Using valid instruments to develop and evaluate interventions is essential to promote health literacy and the effectiveness of diabetes management.
| S-EPMC9859216 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo identify the measures assessing the nursing image, and to analyse, evaluate and synthesize the psychometric properties of these available instruments.DesignA systematic review of the psychometric properties of instruments assessing the nursing image. The system review has been registered in the PROSPERO database with the registration number CRD42020221511.MethodsThe systematic review was conducted according to COSMIN guidelines. Search strategies were run in CINAHL, MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, COSMIN systematic review database, Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracting the psychometric properties of the included study characteristics and instruments. The methodological quality of the studies, instrument measurement performance, risk of bias and grade of evidence were evaluated and disagreements were resolved via discussion.ResultsThe search strategy yielded a total of 24 studies and 11 instruments assessing nursing image. None of the measures fulfilled all criteria in the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. The Nurses Self-Concept Instrument (NSCI) and the Nurses Self-Concept Questionnaire (NSCQ) were recommended for measuring the professional image of nursing, and the Nursing Brand Image Scale (NBIS) have the potential to be recommended for measuring a more comprehensive image of nursing. Every instrument evaluated in this review had different characteristics in the nursing image (e.g. the traditional image, the professional image, and the brand image). Therefore, the selection of the most appropriate instrument depends on the psychometrics, the context and the aim of the assessment.
| S-EPMC10333846 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe use of executive function (EF) instruments to assess children's functional performance is obscured with a lack of consensus on which is most suitable to use within the occupational therapy profession. This review identifies EF instruments used by occupational therapists (OTs) for children and evaluates their measurement properties.MethodsThis systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020172107). We reviewed occupational therapy-related studies published until March 2021, to identify performance-based EF instruments used among children by OTs. Two review authors independently screened, extracted, and evaluated the methodological rigor of the included studies. Adequacy of the measurement properties was determined using the COSMIN, and the Terwee criteria were used for synthesis of best evidence.ResultsFive EF assessments were found across eight study articles: Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome for Children, Children's Cooking Task, Children's Kitchen Task Assessment, Do-Eat, and Preschool Executive Task Assessment. Adequacy of measurement properties and synthesis of best evidence varied, leading to a low GRADE rating on the certainty of evidence for the included instruments.ConclusionsThere is limited evidence that supports the certainty of evidence on the measurement properties of the reviewed tools in helping OTs assess performance-based EF among children. Nevertheless, the authors conditionally suggest their use based on the critical need to measure children's EF. Further research is needed to establish the measurement properties of these measures across different childhood populations.
| S-EPMC8374859 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Pain in children and adolescents with cancer has been identified as an area where many healthcare professionals seek guidance. This protocol details a systematic review whose aim is to explore current knowledge regarding measurement instruments to assess pain (and pain-related distress) in children and adolescents with cancer. After completion of the review, the information will be used in the development of a clinical practice guideline. METHODS:We will search four electronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and HaPI). Additional relevant studies will be identified by reference checking and expert consultation. All citations will be screened independently by two reviewers in a three-step approach: first selection based on title, second selection based on abstract, third selection based on full-text. Studies in children and adolescents with cancer that aimed to evaluate the clinimetric properties of an existing pain measurement instrument or to develop a new pain measurement instrument and that include at least one relevant outcome (reliability, validity, responsiveness, interpretability, clinical utility) are eligible for inclusion. For all steps of evidence selection, a detailed list with eligibility criteria will be determined a priori. Data extraction and quality assessment of included studies (according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments, COSMIN criteria) will be conducted independently by two authors. DISCUSSION:This systematic review will provide an overview of the current literature regarding measurement instruments to assess pain in children and adolescents with cancer. This knowledge synthesis will be used to formulate recommendations for clinical practice. Also, by synthesizing existing evidence, knowledge gaps will be identified. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017072879.
| S-EPMC6348667 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhiplash is a common traumatic cervical injury which is most often a consequence of rear-end motor vehicle accidents. It has been estimated that up to 50% of the whiplash patients suffer from chronic symptoms, resulting in extensive individual and societal burden. Several measurement instruments are used for initial assessment of whiplash and evaluation of response to treatment. However, a comprehensive assessment of the performance of these measures is lacking. Furthermore, there is no consensus on the most relevant outcome domains and their corresponding measurement instruments of choice. This systematic review aims to identify, describe, and critically appraise the performance properties of health-related measurement instruments in whiplash population.MethodsThe following literature databases will be searched from their date of establishment: PubMed, Embase®, MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, PsycINFO, and HAPI. All original articles evaluating the reliability, validity, responsiveness, and feasibility of health-related measurement instruments in whiplash will be included, without additional restriction on their intended use, source of data, and structure. Risk of bias will be assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Findings of the studies will be judged against the criteria for good measurement properties, and results from all studies will be qualitatively summarized to generate an overall quality of findings. Overall quality of evidence will be determined using a modified GRADE approach, which will be used in conjunction with the overall quality of results for generation of recommendations. Two reviewers will perform all steps of the review independently. Discrepancies will be discussed between the reviewers, and in case of remaining disagreement, the senior reviewer will make the final decision.DiscussionThis systematic review will summarize the body of literature on health-related measurement instruments in whiplash, aiming to facilitate the selection of high-quality measurement instrument for researchers and physicians. Findings of this study will guide the ongoing efforts for development of a core outcome set.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO reference number CRD42018070901.
| S-EPMC6688369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOver the last three decades, various instruments were developed and employed to assess medical professionalism, but their measurement properties have yet to be fully evaluated. This study aimed to systematically evaluate these instruments' measurement properties and the methodological quality of their related studies within a universally acceptable standardized framework and then provide corresponding recommendations.MethodsA systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO was conducted to collect studies published from 1990-2015. After screening titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility, the articles included in this study were classified according to their respective instrument's usage. A two-phase assessment was conducted: 1) methodological quality was assessed by following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist; and 2) the quality of measurement properties was assessed according to Terwee's criteria. Results were integrated using best-evidence synthesis to look for recommendable instruments.ResultsAfter screening 2,959 records, 74 instruments from 80 existing studies were included. The overall methodological quality of these studies was unsatisfactory, with reasons including but not limited to unknown missing data, inadequate sample sizes, and vague hypotheses. Content validity, cross-cultural validity, and criterion validity were either unreported or negative ratings in most studies. Based on best-evidence synthesis, three instruments were recommended: Hisar's instrument for nursing students, Nurse Practitioners' Roles and Competencies Scale, and Perceived Faculty Competency Inventory.ConclusionAlthough instruments measuring medical professionalism are diverse, only a limited number of studies were methodologically sound. Future studies should give priority to systematically improving the performance of existing instruments and to longitudinal studies.
| S-EPMC5428933 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA plethora of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) are being used in port wine stain (PWS) studies. It is currently unclear how valid, responsive, and reliable these are.ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review was to appraise the content validity and other measurement properties of OMIs for PWS treatment to identify the most appropriate instruments and future research priorities.MethodsThis study was performed using the updated Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology and adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Comprehensive searches in Medline and Embase were performed. Studies in which an OMI for PWS patients was developed or its measurement properties were evaluated were included. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies and instruments to perform qualitative synthesis of the evidence.ResultsIn total, 1,034 articles were screened, and 77 full-text articles were reviewed. A total of 8 studies were included that reported on 6 physician-reported OMIs of clinical improvement and 6 parent- or patient-reported OMIs of life impact, of which 3 for health-related quality of life and 1 for perceived stigmatization. Overall, the quality of OMI development was inadequate (63%) or doubtful (37%). Each instrument has undergone a very limited evaluation in PWS patients. No content validity studies were performed. The quality of evidence for content validity was very low (78%), low (15%), or moderate (7%), with sufficient comprehensibility, mostly sufficient comprehensiveness, and mixed relevance. No studies on responsiveness, minimal important change, and cross-cultural validity were retrieved. There was moderate- to very low-quality evidence for sufficient inter-rater reliability for some clinical PWS OMIs. Internal consistency and measurement error were indeterminate in all studies.ConclusionsThere was insufficient evidence to properly guide outcome selection. Additional assessment of the measurement properties of OMIs is needed, preferentially guided by a core domain set tailored to PWS.
| S-EPMC8117375 | biostudies-literature