Embedded Files
respondent and clinician or researcher. Feasibility of instrument administration refers to the time and cost of administration, scoring, and interpretation for clinicians, researchers, and other staff (Fitzpatrick et al., 1998). 11 Chapter 2: METHODS Methods adopted were largely as described in previous reviews performed by the Oxford PROM group. However, due to time constraints and given the significant number of previously published reviews in this area, a strategy of updating previous reviews was adopted in part. Articles retrieved were assessed for relevance and evidence of measurement performance and operational characteristics abstracted for each PROM identified. a) Search sources and terms The primary source used to identify relevant articles was English-language PubMed records. Specific search terms are stated in each chapter. Supplementary searches included scanning the reference lists of review articles, checking instrument websites, where found, and drawing on other bibliographic resources. b) Inclusion criteria Titles and abstracts of articles were assessed for inclusion/exclusion by two independent reviewers and agreement was established. Included articles were retrieved in full. Published articles were included if they provided evidence of measurement and / or practical properties (Fitzpatrick et al., 1998) for multi-item instruments assessing aspects of health status or quality of life in patients undergoing cosmetic surgical procedures. Specific inclusion criteria for generic and disease-specific instruments · The instrument is patient-reported. · There is published evidence of measurement reliability, validity or responsiveness following completion in the specified patient population. · The instrument has been recommended for use with patients undergoing cosmetic surgical procedures. · The instrument provides English-language versions for use among adult patients from the United Kingdom (UK), North America and Australasia. · Evidence is available from English language publications, and instrument evaluations conducted in populations within the UK, North America and Australasia. c) Exclusion criteria · Clinician-assessed instruments, · Very narrowly focused or single-item instruments · Instruments only measuring symptoms · Instruments without empirical evidence of measurement properties. 12 d) Data extraction Data extraction followed pre-defined criteria and included both study-specific issues, such as study design and respondent characteristics, and instrumentspecific issues, for example, type and description of instrument, including the domains of health status covered, length, and evidence of measurement and practical properties (McDowell 2006; Fitzpatrick et al., 1998; Garratt et al., 2002). e) Format of the review The summary of evidence largely follows that of previous reviews (McDowell, 2006; Fitzpatrick et al., 1998; Haywood et al., 2004). The following information is provided for each instrument: Title The instrument title as given by the original developer. Instrument developers, year of original publication, and any subsequent revision. Description The purpose and proposed application of each instrument as defined by the developers is described. Instrument development, including item derivation and number of items is summarised where available. Measurement & practical properties For all PROMs evidence of measurement properties (reliability, validity, responsiveness and precision) and practical properties (acceptability and feasibility) are reported in the form of tables. A tick (ü) is used to indicate that some minimal level of positive evidence was reported within the study supporting the relevant PROM. f) PROM summaries Although there are relatively clear cut and widely agreed criteria available to assess measurement properties of instruments, there are no clear-cut explicit criteria for how to weigh the balance of evidence or weigh the balance of evidence for instruments comparatively. The summaries reported here are based on weighing up for each of the instruments considered in detail the volume of available evidence, the quality of studies and, ultimately, the overall extent of positive and supportive evidence of measurement and practical properties. To some extent the review should be considered as based on a form of ‘rapid appraisal’. It was written to inform current policy initiatives in a prompt and timely fashion. Although we are confident that we have a reasonably up-to-date and representative body of evidence to inform recommendations, in the time available it was not feasible exhaustively to search more inaccessible evidence. Nor was there time or resource to test recommendations against a consensus process of relevant user, professional and scientific judgements. 13 Chapter 3: Cosmetic surgery specific PROMs The following chapter provides current information available on cosmetic surgery specific PROMs. Search terms, results and identification of articles Six previous reviews were adopted as the basis for this chapter. The reviews of Reavey et al, 2011; Kosowski et al, 2009; Rhee & McMullin, 2008a; 2008b; Pusic et al, 2007; Ching et al, 2003 thus formed the basis of five separate searches outlined below. The searches are summarised in Table 3.1 · Search 1: Based on the review of Reavey et al (2011), the term ‘patient reported outcome measures AND body
Google Sites
Report abuse