Mettert Kayne, Lewis Cara, Dorsey Caitlin, Halko Heather, Weiner Bryan
Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Judge Baker Children's Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Implement Res Pract. 2020 Aug 28;1:2633489520936644. doi: 10.1177/2633489520936644. eCollection 2020 Jan-Dec.
Systematic reviews of measures can facilitate advances in implementation research and practice by locating reliable and valid measures and highlighting measurement gaps. Our team completed a systematic review of implementation outcome measures published in 2015 that indicated a severe measurement gap in the field. Now, we offer an update with this enhanced systematic review to identify and evaluate the psychometric properties of measures of eight implementation outcomes used in behavioral health care.
The systematic review methodology is described in detail in a previously published protocol paper and summarized here. The review proceeded in three phases. Phase I, data collection, involved search string generation, title and abstract screening, full text review, construct assignment, and measure forward searches. Phase II, data extraction, involved coding psychometric information. Phase III, data analysis, involved two trained specialists independently rating each measure using PAPERS (Psychometric And Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scales).
Searches identified 150 outcomes measures of which 48 were deemed unsuitable for rating and thus excluded, leaving 102 measures for review. We identified measures of acceptability ( = 32), adoption ( = 26), appropriateness ( = 6), cost ( = 31), feasibility ( = 18), fidelity ( = 18), penetration ( = 23), and sustainability ( = 14). Information about internal consistency and norms were available for most measures (59%). Information about other psychometric properties was often not available. Ratings for internal consistency and norms ranged from "adequate" to "excellent." Ratings for other psychometric properties ranged mostly from "poor" to "good."
While measures of implementation outcomes used in behavioral health care (including mental health, substance use, and other addictive behaviors) are unevenly distributed and exhibit mostly unknown psychometric quality, the data reported in this article show an overall improvement in availability of psychometric information. This review identified a few promising measures, but targeted efforts are needed to systematically develop and test measures that are useful for both research and practice.
When implementing an evidence-based treatment into practice, it is important to assess several outcomes to gauge how effectively it is being implemented. Outcomes such as acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness may offer insight into why providers do not adopt a new treatment. Similarly, outcomes such as fidelity and penetration may provide important context for why a new treatment did not achieve desired effects. It is important that methods to measure these outcomes are accurate and consistent. Without accurate and consistent measurement, high-quality evaluations cannot be conducted. This systematic review of published studies sought to identify questionnaires (referred to as measures) that ask staff at various levels (e.g., providers, supervisors) questions related to implementation outcomes, and to evaluate the quality of these measures. We identified 150 measures and rated the quality of their evidence with the goal of recommending the best measures for future use. Our findings suggest that a great deal of work is needed to generate evidence for existing measures or build new measures to achieve confidence in our implementation evaluations.
对测量工具进行系统评价有助于通过找出可靠且有效的工具以及突出测量差距来推动实施研究与实践的进展。我们的团队完成了一项对2015年发表的实施结果测量工具的系统评价,该评价表明该领域存在严重的测量差距。现在,我们通过此次强化的系统评价提供更新内容,以识别和评估行为健康护理中使用的八项实施结果测量工具的心理测量特性。
系统评价方法在之前发表的方案论文中有详细描述,此处进行简要总结。该评价分三个阶段进行。第一阶段,数据收集,包括生成检索词、标题和摘要筛选、全文审查、构建赋值以及测量工具的进一步检索。第二阶段,数据提取,包括对心理测量信息进行编码。第三阶段,数据分析,包括两名经过培训的专家使用PAPERS(心理测量与实用证据评级量表)独立对每个测量工具进行评级。
检索共识别出150项结果测量工具,其中48项被认为不适合评级,因此被排除,剩余102项测量工具进行审查。我们识别出了关于可接受性(n = 32)、采用(n = 26)、适宜性(n = 6)、成本(n = 31)、可行性(n = 18)、保真度(n = 18)、渗透率(n = 23)和可持续性(n = 14)的测量工具。大多数测量工具(59%)可获取内部一致性和常模的信息。关于其他心理测量特性的信息通常无法获取。内部一致性和常模的评级范围从“充分”到“优秀”。其他心理测量特性的评级大多从“差”到“良好”。
虽然行为健康护理(包括心理健康、物质使用和其他成瘾行为)中使用的实施结果测量工具分布不均,且大多心理测量质量未知,但本文报告的数据显示心理测量信息的可获取性总体有所改善。本评价识别出了一些有前景的测量工具,但需要有针对性地努力来系统地开发和测试对研究和实践都有用的测量工具。
在将循证治疗应用于实践时,评估多个结果以衡量其实施效果非常重要。诸如可接受性、可行性和适宜性等结果可能有助于深入了解提供者不采用新治疗方法的原因。同样,诸如保真度和渗透率等结果可能为新治疗方法未达到预期效果提供重要背景信息。测量这些结果的方法准确且一致很重要。没有准确且一致的测量,就无法进行高质量的评估。这项对已发表研究的系统评价旨在识别向各级工作人员(如提供者、监督者)询问与实施结果相关问题的问卷(称为测量工具),并评估这些测量工具的质量。我们识别出150项测量工具,并对其证据质量进行评级,目的是推荐未来使用的最佳测量工具。我们的研究结果表明,需要做大量工作来为现有测量工具生成证据或构建新的测量工具,以增强我们对实施评估的信心。