Mularski Richard A, Dy Sydney M, Shugarman Lisa R, Wilkinson Anne M, Lynn Joanne, Shekelle Paul G, Morton Sally C, Sun Virginia C, Hughes Ronda G, Hilton Lara K, Maglione Margaret, Rhodes Shannon L, Rolon Cony, Lorenz Karl A
Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Oregon Health & Science University, 3800 N. Interstate, WIN 1060, Portland, OR 97227, USA.
Health Serv Res. 2007 Oct;42(5):1848-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2007.00721.x.
To identify psychometrically sound measures of outcomes in end-of-life care and to characterize their use in intervention studies.
English language articles from 1990 to November 2005 describing measures with published psychometric data and intervention studies of end-of-life care.
Systematic review of end-of-life care literature.
Two reviewers organized identified measures into 10 major domains. Eight reviewers extracted and characterized measures from intervention studies.
Of 24,423 citations, we extracted 200 articles that described 261 measures, accepting 99 measures. In addition to 35 measures recommended in a prior systematic review, we identified an additional 64 measures of the end-of-life experience. The most robust measures were in the areas of symptoms, quality of life, and satisfaction; significant gaps existed in continuity of care, advance care planning, spirituality, and caregiver well-being. We also reviewed 84 intervention studies in which 135 patient-centered outcomes were assessed by 97 separate measures. Of these, 80 were used only once and only eight measures were used in more than two studies.
In general, most measures have not undergone rigorous development and testing. Measure development in end-of-life care should focus on areas with identified gaps, and testing should be done to facilitate comparability across the care settings, populations, and clinical conditions. Intervention research should use robust measures that adhere to these standards.
确定临终关怀结局的心理测量学上合理的测量方法,并描述其在干预研究中的应用。
1990年至2005年11月的英文文章,描述具有已发表心理测量学数据的测量方法以及临终关怀的干预研究。
对临终关怀文献进行系统评价。
两名评价者将确定的测量方法分为10个主要领域。八名评价者从干预研究中提取并描述测量方法。
在24423条引用文献中,我们提取了200篇描述261种测量方法的文章,认可了99种测量方法。除了先前系统评价中推荐的35种测量方法外,我们还确定了另外64种临终体验的测量方法。最可靠的测量方法涉及症状、生活质量和满意度领域;在连续性护理、预先护理计划、精神性和照顾者幸福感方面存在显著差距。我们还回顾了84项干预研究,其中通过97种不同的测量方法评估了135个以患者为中心的结局。其中,80种仅使用过一次,只有8种测量方法在两项以上的研究中使用。
总体而言,大多数测量方法尚未经过严格的开发和测试。临终关怀中的测量方法开发应关注已确定差距的领域,并应进行测试以促进不同护理环境、人群和临床状况之间的可比性。干预研究应使用符合这些标准的可靠测量方法。