Cargando…

Perceived stigmatisation and reliability of questionnaire in the survivors with burns wound: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Perceived stigmatisation (PS) can cause different effects on burns survivors such as depression, low self‐esteem, body image disturbance, and social anxiety. Current systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to determine the average PS among the burns survivor population and the average reliability...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Farzan, Ramyar, Hosseini, Seyed Javad, Firooz, Mahbobeh, Tabarian, Mansooreh Sadeh, Jamshidbeigi, Amirreza, Samidoust, Pirouz, Sarafi, Milad, Mahdiabadi, Morteza Zaboli, Ghorbani Vajargah, Pooyan, Mollaei, Amirabbas, Karkhah, Samad, Takasi, Poorya, Parvizi, Arman, Haddadi, Soudabeh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10502297/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37016493
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/iwj.14176
_version_ 1785106291447824384
author Farzan, Ramyar
Hosseini, Seyed Javad
Firooz, Mahbobeh
Tabarian, Mansooreh Sadeh
Jamshidbeigi, Amirreza
Samidoust, Pirouz
Sarafi, Milad
Mahdiabadi, Morteza Zaboli
Ghorbani Vajargah, Pooyan
Mollaei, Amirabbas
Karkhah, Samad
Takasi, Poorya
Parvizi, Arman
Haddadi, Soudabeh
author_facet Farzan, Ramyar
Hosseini, Seyed Javad
Firooz, Mahbobeh
Tabarian, Mansooreh Sadeh
Jamshidbeigi, Amirreza
Samidoust, Pirouz
Sarafi, Milad
Mahdiabadi, Morteza Zaboli
Ghorbani Vajargah, Pooyan
Mollaei, Amirabbas
Karkhah, Samad
Takasi, Poorya
Parvizi, Arman
Haddadi, Soudabeh
author_sort Farzan, Ramyar
collection PubMed
description Perceived stigmatisation (PS) can cause different effects on burns survivors such as depression, low self‐esteem, body image disturbance, and social anxiety. Current systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to determine the average PS among the burns survivor population and the average reliability of the PS questionnaire (PSQ). A comprehensive systematic search was conducted in various international electronic databases, such as Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Persian electronic databases such as Iranmedex, and Scientific Information Database (SID) using keywords extracted from Medical Subject Headings such as “Stigmatisation”, “Burns”, “Reliability”, and “Questionnaire” from the earliest to February 1, 2023. The COSMIN and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists were applied to evaluate the risk of bias. Data analysis was performed in STATA V.14 and JAMOVI v 2.3.24 software. The analysis consisted of two sections. Firstly, the overall weighted average of PS was calculated based on mean and standard deviation. Then, the reliability average of PSQ was calculated with the reliability generalisation method based on the alpha coefficient, questionnaire items, and sample size of each study. Finally, eight articles were included in the quantitative analysis. The results showed the weighted average of PS was 2.14 (ES: 2.14, 95%CI: 1.77‐2.51, Z = 11.40, I(2):97.8%, P < 0.001). The average of PS in the factors of confused/staring behaviour, absence of friendly behaviour, and hostile behaviour was 2.36 (ES: 2.36, 95%CI: 2.05‐2.67, Z = 14.86, I(2):92.7%, P < 0.001), 2.13 (ES: 2.13, 95%CI: 1.87‐2.39, Z = 16.22, I(2):93.8%, P < 0.001) and 2.07 (ES: 2.07, 95%CI: 1.67‐2.47, Z = 10.05, I(2):96.5%, P < 0.001), respectively. The analysis showed that the overall coefficient alpha of the PSQ was 0.88 (ES: 0.88, 95%CI: 0.851‐0.910, Z = 58.7, I(2): 95.04%, P < 0.001). Also, the alpha coefficient of factors including confused/staring behaviour, absence of friendly behaviour, and hostile behaviour were 0.847 (ES: 0.847, 95%CI: 0.770‐0.924, Z = 21.6, I(2):99.13%, P < 0.001), 0.860 (ES: 0.860, 95%CI: 0.808‐0.912, Z = 32.4, I(2):98.02%, P < 0.001) and 0.899 (ES: 0.899, 95%CI: 0.829‐0.968, Z = 21.33, I(2): 0.0%, P < 0.001), respectively. In sum, the current study showed that the average PS was 2.14 out of 5 points. Most survivors and parents reported confused/starring behaviour as a common perceived behaviour from different individuals. Also, the average reliability of PSQ was 0.88, and it had acceptable reliability. More studies are required to better judge the level of PS among different age groups. Also, the psychometric properties of PSQ in different cultures are an essential issue.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10502297
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Blackwell Publishing Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105022972023-09-16 Perceived stigmatisation and reliability of questionnaire in the survivors with burns wound: A systematic review and meta‐analysis Farzan, Ramyar Hosseini, Seyed Javad Firooz, Mahbobeh Tabarian, Mansooreh Sadeh Jamshidbeigi, Amirreza Samidoust, Pirouz Sarafi, Milad Mahdiabadi, Morteza Zaboli Ghorbani Vajargah, Pooyan Mollaei, Amirabbas Karkhah, Samad Takasi, Poorya Parvizi, Arman Haddadi, Soudabeh Int Wound J Review Articles Perceived stigmatisation (PS) can cause different effects on burns survivors such as depression, low self‐esteem, body image disturbance, and social anxiety. Current systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to determine the average PS among the burns survivor population and the average reliability of the PS questionnaire (PSQ). A comprehensive systematic search was conducted in various international electronic databases, such as Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Persian electronic databases such as Iranmedex, and Scientific Information Database (SID) using keywords extracted from Medical Subject Headings such as “Stigmatisation”, “Burns”, “Reliability”, and “Questionnaire” from the earliest to February 1, 2023. The COSMIN and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists were applied to evaluate the risk of bias. Data analysis was performed in STATA V.14 and JAMOVI v 2.3.24 software. The analysis consisted of two sections. Firstly, the overall weighted average of PS was calculated based on mean and standard deviation. Then, the reliability average of PSQ was calculated with the reliability generalisation method based on the alpha coefficient, questionnaire items, and sample size of each study. Finally, eight articles were included in the quantitative analysis. The results showed the weighted average of PS was 2.14 (ES: 2.14, 95%CI: 1.77‐2.51, Z = 11.40, I(2):97.8%, P < 0.001). The average of PS in the factors of confused/staring behaviour, absence of friendly behaviour, and hostile behaviour was 2.36 (ES: 2.36, 95%CI: 2.05‐2.67, Z = 14.86, I(2):92.7%, P < 0.001), 2.13 (ES: 2.13, 95%CI: 1.87‐2.39, Z = 16.22, I(2):93.8%, P < 0.001) and 2.07 (ES: 2.07, 95%CI: 1.67‐2.47, Z = 10.05, I(2):96.5%, P < 0.001), respectively. The analysis showed that the overall coefficient alpha of the PSQ was 0.88 (ES: 0.88, 95%CI: 0.851‐0.910, Z = 58.7, I(2): 95.04%, P < 0.001). Also, the alpha coefficient of factors including confused/staring behaviour, absence of friendly behaviour, and hostile behaviour were 0.847 (ES: 0.847, 95%CI: 0.770‐0.924, Z = 21.6, I(2):99.13%, P < 0.001), 0.860 (ES: 0.860, 95%CI: 0.808‐0.912, Z = 32.4, I(2):98.02%, P < 0.001) and 0.899 (ES: 0.899, 95%CI: 0.829‐0.968, Z = 21.33, I(2): 0.0%, P < 0.001), respectively. In sum, the current study showed that the average PS was 2.14 out of 5 points. Most survivors and parents reported confused/starring behaviour as a common perceived behaviour from different individuals. Also, the average reliability of PSQ was 0.88, and it had acceptable reliability. More studies are required to better judge the level of PS among different age groups. Also, the psychometric properties of PSQ in different cultures are an essential issue. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2023-04-04 /pmc/articles/PMC10502297/ /pubmed/37016493 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/iwj.14176 Text en © 2023 The Authors. International Wound Journal published by Medicalhelplines.com Inc and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Review Articles
Farzan, Ramyar
Hosseini, Seyed Javad
Firooz, Mahbobeh
Tabarian, Mansooreh Sadeh
Jamshidbeigi, Amirreza
Samidoust, Pirouz
Sarafi, Milad
Mahdiabadi, Morteza Zaboli
Ghorbani Vajargah, Pooyan
Mollaei, Amirabbas
Karkhah, Samad
Takasi, Poorya
Parvizi, Arman
Haddadi, Soudabeh
Perceived stigmatisation and reliability of questionnaire in the survivors with burns wound: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title Perceived stigmatisation and reliability of questionnaire in the survivors with burns wound: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full Perceived stigmatisation and reliability of questionnaire in the survivors with burns wound: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_fullStr Perceived stigmatisation and reliability of questionnaire in the survivors with burns wound: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full_unstemmed Perceived stigmatisation and reliability of questionnaire in the survivors with burns wound: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_short Perceived stigmatisation and reliability of questionnaire in the survivors with burns wound: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_sort perceived stigmatisation and reliability of questionnaire in the survivors with burns wound: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
topic Review Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10502297/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37016493
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/iwj.14176
work_keys_str_mv AT farzanramyar perceivedstigmatisationandreliabilityofquestionnaireinthesurvivorswithburnswoundasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hosseiniseyedjavad perceivedstigmatisationandreliabilityofquestionnaireinthesurvivorswithburnswoundasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT firoozmahbobeh perceivedstigmatisationandreliabilityofquestionnaireinthesurvivorswithburnswoundasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT tabarianmansoorehsadeh perceivedstigmatisationandreliabilityofquestionnaireinthesurvivorswithburnswoundasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jamshidbeigiamirreza perceivedstigmatisationandreliabilityofquestionnaireinthesurvivorswithburnswoundasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT samidoustpirouz perceivedstigmatisationandreliabilityofquestionnaireinthesurvivorswithburnswoundasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT sarafimilad perceivedstigmatisationandreliabilityofquestionnaireinthesurvivorswithburnswoundasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mahdiabadimortezazaboli perceivedstigmatisationandreliabilityofquestionnaireinthesurvivorswithburnswoundasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ghorbanivajargahpooyan perceivedstigmatisationandreliabilityofquestionnaireinthesurvivorswithburnswoundasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mollaeiamirabbas perceivedstigmatisationandreliabilityofquestionnaireinthesurvivorswithburnswoundasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT karkhahsamad perceivedstigmatisationandreliabilityofquestionnaireinthesurvivorswithburnswoundasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT takasipoorya perceivedstigmatisationandreliabilityofquestionnaireinthesurvivorswithburnswoundasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT parviziarman perceivedstigmatisationandreliabilityofquestionnaireinthesurvivorswithburnswoundasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT haddadisoudabeh perceivedstigmatisationandreliabilityofquestionnaireinthesurvivorswithburnswoundasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis