Premium
心理健康质量和满意度测定工具的心理测量学特性:系统审查
Author(s) -
SanchezBalcells Sara,
Callarisa Roca Marta,
RodriguezZunino Nathalia,
PuigLlobet Montserrat,
LluchCanut MariaTeresa,
RoldanMerino Juan F.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of advanced nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.948
H-Index - 155
eISSN - 1365-2648
pISSN - 0309-2402
DOI - 10.1111/jan.13813
Subject(s) - cinahl , checklist , medline , mental health , quality (philosophy) , medicine , applied psychology , scopus , reliability (semiconductor) , health care , psychometrics , inclusion (mineral) , critical appraisal , psychology , nursing , clinical psychology , psychiatry , alternative medicine , psychological intervention , social psychology , philosophy , law , cognitive psychology , economic growth , power (physics) , epistemology , quantum mechanics , political science , physics , economics , pathology
Aim To identify the methodological quality of each study and analyse the psychometric properties of instruments measuring quality and satisfaction with care from the perspective of mental health patients and professionals. Background In recent years, interest in rigorously assessing quality of care in mental health and nursing has increased. Health professionals and researchers should select the most adequate instrument based on knowledge of its measurement properties. Review design A psychometric review was conducted of the instruments from the perspectives of both patients and professionals according to the CO nsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement IN struments panel ( COSMIN ). Data sources Articles published from January 2005 – September 2016 were identified in a search of MEDLINE , CINAHL , and SCOPUS . We included studies in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. Review methods Inclusion criteria were applied to all articles validated and reviewed by a second independent reviewer. The analysis included the use of the COSMIN checklist and the Terwee quality criteria. Results In the 34 studies selected, a total of 22 instruments which measure quality and satisfaction with care provided, according to patients and/or professionals, were identified. Most are instruments with sound, contemporary theoretical foundations. They vary to the extent to which they have been used in empirical studies and with respect to evaluation of their validity and reliability, although five instruments stand out as yielding good‐excellent values in quality criteria. Conclusion The present psychometric review found that five of the instruments met valid psychometric criteria. In light of the current economic situation, future reviews should include analysis of the usefulness of instruments based on cost‐effectiveness, acceptability, and educational impact.