Scoping Review Of Measures Research Articles

Adolescent hope and optimism: A scoping review of measures and their psychometric properties

There is much research examining adolescent hope and optimism, but there is limited information on the available measures, particularly the most frequently used measures and their psychometric properties. We conducted a scoping review to: (1) identify measures of hope and optimism for use among adolescents; (2) determine the most frequently used measures of adolescent hope and optimism; (3) document the psychometric properties of the identified measures. We searched five bibliographic databases and Open Grey for relevant articles published from database inception to 03 May 2023. The search included the key terms ‘adolescents’, ‘optimism’, ‘hope’ and ‘measures’. We targeted adolescents aged 10–19 years without country or gender restrictions. We identified 86 measures of optimism and 64 measures of hope for use among adolescents from 803 eligible studies. Most of the included studies (n = 341, 42.5%) originated from North America. We identified 22 most frequently used measures used across 603 (75.1%) of the included studies, with 509 (84.4%) of them providing their psychometric properties. The reported validity of the tools included face, content, construct, criterion, convergent, discriminant, predictive validity and measurement invariance. There are several measures of adolescent hope and optimism. The most frequently used measures of these constructs demonstrated sound psychometric properties, especially reliability. However, most of the evidence originates from high-income countries. There is a need for development, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of these tools to other settings.Contribution: Hope and optimism are character strengths that have been consistently linked to positive health outcomes in adolescents. Based on increasing research on adolescent hope and optimism, there have been measures developed to assess these constructs but there is no study summarising the available measures, particularly regarding the most frequently used measures and their reliability and validity across contexts. This study aimed at filling this gap. Information on this will be useful to various stakeholders to make evidence-informed choice on selection of the most relevant instrument for use in adolescents in their contexts.

A Scoping Review of Measures Used in Early Intervention Services for Psychosis.

The early intervention service (EIS) model for psychosis has been implemented with increasing frequency; yet, improving outcomes across domains for all patients remains challenging. Measurement-based care can strengthen outcomes by optimizing interventions and promoting alignment with standards, but it is still not widely deployed in EIS. The authors conducted a scoping review by systematically identifying and synthesizing measures used in EIS related to purpose (i.e., to assess patients, families, and programs), domains (e.g., symptoms, quality of life), and reporting perspectives (of patients, families, and clinicians). EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for pertinent literature published between 2000 and 2020. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts and extracted data. Measures were classified as clinician-reported outcome measures (CROMs), patient-reported outcome or experience measures (PROMs/PREMs), or family-reported outcome or experience measures (FROMs/FREMs). In total, 172 measures of 27 domains were identified from 115 articles. Nineteen measures had been used to assess programs on fidelity, service engagement, and satisfaction; 136 to assess patients on duration of untreated psychosis, symptoms, functioning, quality of life, and others; and 17 to assess families on coping and burden, background, and others. Sixty percent were CROMs, 30% were PROMs/PREMs, and 10% were FROMs/FREMs. Greater inclusion of PROMs and FROMs is needed because they align with the EIS philosophy of patient and family engagement and may improve shared decision making and outcomes. A comprehensive, meaningfully synthesized archive of measures can advance measurement-based care, services research, and data harmonization in early psychosis.

Adverse childhood experiences: A scoping review of measures and methods

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) lead to excess morbidity and mortality. However, this evidence has not resulted in large-scale efforts to prevent ACEs. We conducted a scoping review of ACEs research to determine its direction and identify advancement toward solutions to prevent ACEs. The review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. Articles were considered eligible for inclusion if they were empirical studies based on original quantitative data from humans published between 1999 and 2019 and used the term “adverse” or adversity” to refer to a construct under study or a specific measure in the methodology. After a comprehensive search across nine databases, screening of the abstracts of 3,944 articles and the full texts of 2,341 articles, 1,361 empirical articles met inclusion criteria. We coded year of publication; journal name; stated study purpose (e.g., descriptive, intervention); types of adversities used to define ACEs; funding sources and declared conflicts of interest; country of the sample; and affiliation with other studies. To characterize the extent to which ACEs research focuses on ACE prevention, we then coded “narratives” reflected in research goals, with a particular focus on whether this research focuses exclusively on ACEs as the primary predictor variables, or if it integrates “upstream” social determinants of health and health inequities that may lead to ACE exposure. Thus, we coded how the elements of the stated research goals related to ACEs (e.g., predictor, mediator, moderator, and outcome variables) using the World Health Organization’s framework on social determinants of health (Solar & Irwin, 2010). Finally, we coded whether protective factors were included in research designs and the level of these factors (e.g., individual vs. community), and researchers’ recommendations for translating their findings to action. All variables were coded by at least two coders; inter-rater reliabilities ranged from 79 to 100%. We found that 60.6% of articles were based on samples recruited from the U.S.; funding sources have shifted to U.S. institutions with biomedical or clinical concerns; that only 47.2% of articles included in their definition of ACEs all seven items from the original ACE study; and that the dominant narrative about ACEs started with ACEs as the “villains” who begin a story of decline and ended with “victims” who have behavioral and/or emotional problems. Studies overwhelmingly examined the downstream effects of ACEs rather than upstream causes or preventive interventions. That is, only 6.6% of articles proposed protective factors that went beyond the individual or family level; and researchers’ recommendations favored amelioration of ACEs after they occur, with only 20% of articles mentioning primordial or primary prevention. This disproportionate focus on downstream determinants after ACEs have already occurred limits the impact of this research in terms of potential cost-benefit, social justice, and mitigation of health inequities. We recommend that future ACEs research be incorporated into broader, strengths-based and action-oriented frameworks focused on social determinants of health and health inequities; link ACEs to their putative causes as a bridge to primordial/primary prevention; address obstacles to this shift toward upstream causes of ACEs; and communicate findings and recommendations more effectively.

A scoping review of measures used to assess body image in women with breast cancer.

The emergence of body image studies in the oncology setting has led to the use of numerous measures to assess different dimensions of body image. The present study is a scoping review of the literature on body image in women with breast cancer to describe: measures used to assess body image in women with breast cancer, dimensions the measures used tap into, and gaps and issues needing attention going forward. Three databases were searched for peer-reviewed original studies that had: (1) full-texts available in English; (2) focused on women with breast cancer; and (3) assessed body image. The search yielded 3,729 peer-reviewed articles; after screening, 562 articles met inclusion criteria. Of the 88 measures used, 28 were used in more than two studies and analyzed herein. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire constituted the most frequently used measure. Most measures used focused on the affective dimension of body image (n=24/28, 85.7%), followed by the cognitive (n=20/28, 71.4%), behavioral (n=13/28, 46.4%), and perceptual dimensions (n=13/28, 46.4%). This review provides a current summary of measures used to assess body image in women with breast cancer. Although some further development and refinement of body image measures could benefit the field, depending on the questions researchers or clinicians seek to answer, there are many available for use. Future research should use these measures to assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving body image in women with breast cancer across the lifespan.

Quality of life and well-being from the perspective of patients on opioid agonist maintenance treatment: study protocol for a systematic review of qualitative research and a scoping review of measures

BackgroundOpioid agonist maintenance treatment (OAMT) is a first-line treatment for heroin dependence, but its effectiveness has been assessed primarily through clinical outcomes with a limited attention to patient perspectives. Despite the increased use of patient reported outcome measures their patient-centeredness is highly questionable. This is the protocol of a systematic review of qualitative research on how OAMT users construct the meaning of their quality of life and well-being and a scoping review of instruments that measure these domains.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of qualitative research exploring the views of quality of life of patients on OAMT (registration number CRD42018086490). According pre-specified eligibility criteria, we will include studies from a comprehensive search of bibliographical databases from their inception. We will extract data from included studies and assess their risk of bias with the CASP appraisal criteria, and will implement a thematic analysis to generate a set of interpretative analytical themes ascertaining their confidence using the CERQual approach. We will implement similar methods to conduct a scoping review to assess to what extent the existing measures of these domains were focused on user’s views, assessing their validity using the COSMIN methodology, and summarizing their characteristics and level of patient centeredness.ConclusionThe findings from the reviews will contribute to obtain a genuine understanding of the perspective from users on OAMT regarding their perception of well-being and quality of life and will likely lead to greater patient centeredness when assessing such variables, which in turn may contribute to a more patient-centered care.