Assessment of patient empowerment - a systematic review of measures

Standard

Assessment of patient empowerment - a systematic review of measures. / Barr, Paul J; Scholl, Isabelle; Bravo, Paulina; Faber, Marjan J; Elwyn, Glyn; McAllister, Marion.

in: PLOS ONE, Jahrgang 10, Nr. 5, 2015, S. e0126553.

Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/ZeitungSCORING: ZeitschriftenaufsatzForschungBegutachtung

Harvard

Barr, PJ, Scholl, I, Bravo, P, Faber, MJ, Elwyn, G & McAllister, M 2015, 'Assessment of patient empowerment - a systematic review of measures', PLOS ONE, Jg. 10, Nr. 5, S. e0126553. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126553

APA

Barr, P. J., Scholl, I., Bravo, P., Faber, M. J., Elwyn, G., & McAllister, M. (2015). Assessment of patient empowerment - a systematic review of measures. PLOS ONE, 10(5), e0126553. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126553

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{ca6b749e96a747ff99e31ee2210295fc,
title = "Assessment of patient empowerment - a systematic review of measures",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Patient empowerment has gained considerable importance but uncertainty remains about the best way to define and measure it. The validity of empirical findings depends on the quality of measures used. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of studies assessing psychometric properties of questionnaires purporting to capture patient empowerment, evaluate the methodological quality of these studies and assess the psychometric properties of measures identified.METHODS: Electronic searches in five databases were combined with reference tracking of included articles. Peer-reviewed articles reporting psychometric testing of empowerment measures for adult patients in French, German, English, Portuguese and Spanish were included. Study characteristics, constructs operationalised and psychometric properties were extracted. The quality of study design, methods and reporting was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. The quality of psychometric properties was assessed using Terwee's 2007 criteria.FINDINGS: 30 studies on 19 measures were included. Six measures are generic, while 13 were developed for a specific condition (N=4) or specialty (N=9). Most studies tested measures in English (N=17) or Swedish (N=6). Sample sizes of included studies varied from N=35 to N=8261. A range of patient empowerment constructs was operationalised in included measures. These were classified into four domains: patient states, experiences and capacities; patient actions and behaviours; patient self-determination within the healthcare relationship and patient skills development. Quality assessment revealed several flaws in methodological study quality with COSMIN scores mainly fair or poor. The overall quality of psychometric properties of included measures was intermediate to positive. Certain psychometric properties were not tested for most measures.DISCUSSION: Findings provide a basis from which to develop consensus on a core set of patient empowerment constructs and for further work to develop a (set of) appropriately validated measure(s) to capture this. The methodological quality of psychometric studies could be improved by adhering to published quality criteria.",
author = "Barr, {Paul J} and Isabelle Scholl and Paulina Bravo and Faber, {Marjan J} and Glyn Elwyn and Marion McAllister",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0126553",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "e0126553",
journal = "PLOS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of patient empowerment - a systematic review of measures

AU - Barr, Paul J

AU - Scholl, Isabelle

AU - Bravo, Paulina

AU - Faber, Marjan J

AU - Elwyn, Glyn

AU - McAllister, Marion

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - BACKGROUND: Patient empowerment has gained considerable importance but uncertainty remains about the best way to define and measure it. The validity of empirical findings depends on the quality of measures used. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of studies assessing psychometric properties of questionnaires purporting to capture patient empowerment, evaluate the methodological quality of these studies and assess the psychometric properties of measures identified.METHODS: Electronic searches in five databases were combined with reference tracking of included articles. Peer-reviewed articles reporting psychometric testing of empowerment measures for adult patients in French, German, English, Portuguese and Spanish were included. Study characteristics, constructs operationalised and psychometric properties were extracted. The quality of study design, methods and reporting was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. The quality of psychometric properties was assessed using Terwee's 2007 criteria.FINDINGS: 30 studies on 19 measures were included. Six measures are generic, while 13 were developed for a specific condition (N=4) or specialty (N=9). Most studies tested measures in English (N=17) or Swedish (N=6). Sample sizes of included studies varied from N=35 to N=8261. A range of patient empowerment constructs was operationalised in included measures. These were classified into four domains: patient states, experiences and capacities; patient actions and behaviours; patient self-determination within the healthcare relationship and patient skills development. Quality assessment revealed several flaws in methodological study quality with COSMIN scores mainly fair or poor. The overall quality of psychometric properties of included measures was intermediate to positive. Certain psychometric properties were not tested for most measures.DISCUSSION: Findings provide a basis from which to develop consensus on a core set of patient empowerment constructs and for further work to develop a (set of) appropriately validated measure(s) to capture this. The methodological quality of psychometric studies could be improved by adhering to published quality criteria.

AB - BACKGROUND: Patient empowerment has gained considerable importance but uncertainty remains about the best way to define and measure it. The validity of empirical findings depends on the quality of measures used. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of studies assessing psychometric properties of questionnaires purporting to capture patient empowerment, evaluate the methodological quality of these studies and assess the psychometric properties of measures identified.METHODS: Electronic searches in five databases were combined with reference tracking of included articles. Peer-reviewed articles reporting psychometric testing of empowerment measures for adult patients in French, German, English, Portuguese and Spanish were included. Study characteristics, constructs operationalised and psychometric properties were extracted. The quality of study design, methods and reporting was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. The quality of psychometric properties was assessed using Terwee's 2007 criteria.FINDINGS: 30 studies on 19 measures were included. Six measures are generic, while 13 were developed for a specific condition (N=4) or specialty (N=9). Most studies tested measures in English (N=17) or Swedish (N=6). Sample sizes of included studies varied from N=35 to N=8261. A range of patient empowerment constructs was operationalised in included measures. These were classified into four domains: patient states, experiences and capacities; patient actions and behaviours; patient self-determination within the healthcare relationship and patient skills development. Quality assessment revealed several flaws in methodological study quality with COSMIN scores mainly fair or poor. The overall quality of psychometric properties of included measures was intermediate to positive. Certain psychometric properties were not tested for most measures.DISCUSSION: Findings provide a basis from which to develop consensus on a core set of patient empowerment constructs and for further work to develop a (set of) appropriately validated measure(s) to capture this. The methodological quality of psychometric studies could be improved by adhering to published quality criteria.

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0126553

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0126553

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 25970618

VL - 10

SP - e0126553

JO - PLOS ONE

JF - PLOS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 5

ER -