Khadjesari Zarnie, Vitoratou Silia, Sevdalis Nick, Hull Louise
Department of Health Service and Population Research, Centre for Implementation Science, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, UK.
Department of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Psychometrics and Measurement Lab, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, UK.
BMJ Open. 2017 Oct 8;7(10):e017972. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017972.
Over the past 10 years, research into methods that promote the uptake, implementation and sustainability of evidence-based interventions has gathered pace. However, implementation outcomes are defined in different ways and assessed by different measures; the extent to which these measures are valid and reliable is unknown. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and appraise studies that assess the measurement properties of quantitative implementation outcome instruments used in physical healthcare settings, to advance the use of precise and accurate measures.
The following databases will be searched from inception to March 2017: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. Grey literature will be sought via HMIC, OpenGrey, ProQuest for theses and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. Reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews will be hand searched. Three search strings will be combined to identify eligible studies: (1) implementation literature, (2) implementation outcomes and (3) measurement properties. Screening of titles, abstracts and full papers will be assessed for eligibility by two reviewers independently and any discrepancies resolved via consensus with the wider team. The methodological quality of the studies will be assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. A set of bespoke criteria to determine the quality of the instruments will be used, and the relationship between instrument usability and quality will be explored.
Ethical approval is not necessary for systematic review protocols. Researchers and healthcare professionals can use the findings of this systematic review to guide the selection of implementation outcomes instruments, based on their psychometric quality, to assess the impact of their implementation efforts. The findings will also provide a useful guide for reviewers of papers and grants to determine the psychometric quality of the measures used in implementation research.
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42017065348.
在过去十年中，对促进循证干预措施的采用、实施及可持续性方法的研究不断加速。然而，实施结果的定义方式各异，评估方法也不尽相同；这些方法的有效性和可靠性程度尚不清楚。本系统评价的目的是识别和评估在物理医疗环境中用于评估定量实施结果工具测量属性的研究，以推动精确和准确测量方法的应用。
将检索以下数据库自建库起至2017年3月的数据：医学期刊数据库（MEDLINE）、荷兰医学文摘数据库（EMBASE）、心理学文摘数据库（PsycINFO）、护理学与健康领域数据库（CINAHL）以及考克兰图书馆。将通过英国医学史数据库（HMIC）、OpenGrey、ProQuest学位论文数据库以及科学网会议论文引文索引 - 科学版查找灰色文献。将手工检索纳入研究的参考文献列表及相关综述。将合并三个检索词串以识别符合条件的研究：（1）实施文献，（2）实施结果，（3）测量属性。两名评审员将独立评估标题、摘要和全文的筛选是否符合纳入标准，任何分歧将通过与更广泛团队达成共识来解决。将使用基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准清单评估研究的方法学质量。将使用一套定制标准来确定工具的质量，并探讨工具可用性与质量之间的关系。
系统评价方案无需伦理批准。研究人员和医疗保健专业人员可根据本系统评价的结果，基于其心理测量质量来指导选择实施结果工具，以评估其实施工作的影响。研究结果还将为论文和基金评审人员提供有用指南，以确定实施研究中所用测量方法的心理测量质量。
国际前瞻性系统评价注册库（PROSPERO）：CRD42017065348。
