Suppr超能文献

评估医学职业精神:对工具及其测量属性的系统评价。

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

作者信息

Li Honghe, Ding Ning, Zhang Yuanyuan, Liu Yang, Wen Deliang

机构信息

Research Center of Medical Education, China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.

School of Public Health, Dalian Medical University, Dalian, Liaoning, China.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2017 May 12;12(5):e0177321. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177321. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

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.

摘要

背景

在过去三十年中,人们开发并使用了各种工具来评估医学职业精神,但它们的测量特性尚未得到充分评估。本研究旨在在一个普遍认可的标准化框架内系统地评估这些工具的测量特性及其相关研究的方法学质量,然后提供相应的建议。

方法

对电子数据库PubMed、Web of Science和PsycINFO进行系统检索,以收集1990年至2015年发表的研究。在筛选标题、摘要和全文以确定是否符合纳入标准后,本研究纳入的文章根据各自工具的用途进行分类。进行了两阶段评估:1)按照基于共识的健康状况测量工具选择标准(COSMIN)清单评估方法学质量;2)根据特尔维标准评估测量特性的质量。使用最佳证据综合法整合结果,以寻找可推荐的工具。

结果

在筛选了2959条记录后,纳入了来自80项现有研究的74种工具。这些研究的总体方法学质量不令人满意,原因包括但不限于未知的缺失数据、样本量不足和假设模糊。在大多数研究中,内容效度、跨文化效度和效标效度要么未报告,要么评级为负面。基于最佳证据综合法,推荐了三种工具:希萨尔护理专业学生工具、执业护士角色与能力量表和教师感知能力量表。

结论

尽管测量医学职业精神的工具多种多样,但在方法学上合理的研究数量有限。未来的研究应优先系统地提高现有工具的性能,并开展纵向研究。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/52f0/5428933/9ba49ff0338f/pone.0177321.g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验