English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Over 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.    Methods  A 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.    Results  After 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.    Conclusion  Although 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.

Assessing medical professionalism: A systematic review of instruments and their measurement properties