Cargando…

Assessing medical professionalism: A systematic review of instruments and their measurement properties

BACKGROUND: Over the last three decades, various instruments were developed and employed to assess medical professionalism, but their measurement properties have yet to be fully evaluated. This study aimed to systematically evaluate these instruments’ measurement properties and the methodological qu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Honghe, Ding, Ning, Zhang, Yuanyuan, Liu, Yang, Wen, Deliang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5428933/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28498838
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177321
_version_ 1783235933267558400
author Li, Honghe
Ding, Ning
Zhang, Yuanyuan
Liu, Yang
Wen, Deliang
author_facet Li, Honghe
Ding, Ning
Zhang, Yuanyuan
Liu, Yang
Wen, Deliang
author_sort Li, Honghe
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Over the last three decades, various instruments were developed and employed to assess medical professionalism, but their measurement properties have yet to be fully evaluated. This study aimed to systematically evaluate these instruments’ measurement properties and the methodological quality of their related studies within a universally acceptable standardized framework and then provide corresponding recommendations. METHODS: A systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO was conducted to collect studies published from 1990–2015. After screening titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility, the articles included in this study were classified according to their respective instrument’s usage. A two-phase assessment was conducted: 1) methodological quality was assessed by following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist; and 2) the quality of measurement properties was assessed according to Terwee’s criteria. Results were integrated using best-evidence synthesis to look for recommendable instruments. RESULTS: After screening 2,959 records, 74 instruments from 80 existing studies were included. The overall methodological quality of these studies was unsatisfactory, with reasons including but not limited to unknown missing data, inadequate sample sizes, and vague hypotheses. Content validity, cross-cultural validity, and criterion validity were either unreported or negative ratings in most studies. Based on best-evidence synthesis, three instruments were recommended: Hisar’s instrument for nursing students, Nurse Practitioners’ Roles and Competencies Scale, and Perceived Faculty Competency Inventory. CONCLUSION: Although instruments measuring medical professionalism are diverse, only a limited number of studies were methodologically sound. Future studies should give priority to systematically improving the performance of existing instruments and to longitudinal studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5428933
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54289332017-05-26 Assessing medical professionalism: A systematic review of instruments and their measurement properties Li, Honghe Ding, Ning Zhang, Yuanyuan Liu, Yang Wen, Deliang PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Over the last three decades, various instruments were developed and employed to assess medical professionalism, but their measurement properties have yet to be fully evaluated. This study aimed to systematically evaluate these instruments’ measurement properties and the methodological quality of their related studies within a universally acceptable standardized framework and then provide corresponding recommendations. METHODS: A systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO was conducted to collect studies published from 1990–2015. After screening titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility, the articles included in this study were classified according to their respective instrument’s usage. A two-phase assessment was conducted: 1) methodological quality was assessed by following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist; and 2) the quality of measurement properties was assessed according to Terwee’s criteria. Results were integrated using best-evidence synthesis to look for recommendable instruments. RESULTS: After screening 2,959 records, 74 instruments from 80 existing studies were included. The overall methodological quality of these studies was unsatisfactory, with reasons including but not limited to unknown missing data, inadequate sample sizes, and vague hypotheses. Content validity, cross-cultural validity, and criterion validity were either unreported or negative ratings in most studies. Based on best-evidence synthesis, three instruments were recommended: Hisar’s instrument for nursing students, Nurse Practitioners’ Roles and Competencies Scale, and Perceived Faculty Competency Inventory. CONCLUSION: Although instruments measuring medical professionalism are diverse, only a limited number of studies were methodologically sound. Future studies should give priority to systematically improving the performance of existing instruments and to longitudinal studies. Public Library of Science 2017-05-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5428933/ /pubmed/28498838 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177321 Text en © 2017 Li et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Li, Honghe
Ding, Ning
Zhang, Yuanyuan
Liu, Yang
Wen, Deliang
Assessing medical professionalism: A systematic review of instruments and their measurement properties
title Assessing medical professionalism: A systematic review of instruments and their measurement properties
title_full Assessing medical professionalism: A systematic review of instruments and their measurement properties
title_fullStr Assessing medical professionalism: A systematic review of instruments and their measurement properties
title_full_unstemmed Assessing medical professionalism: A systematic review of instruments and their measurement properties
title_short Assessing medical professionalism: A systematic review of instruments and their measurement properties
title_sort assessing medical professionalism: a systematic review of instruments and their measurement properties
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5428933/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28498838
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177321
work_keys_str_mv AT lihonghe assessingmedicalprofessionalismasystematicreviewofinstrumentsandtheirmeasurementproperties
AT dingning assessingmedicalprofessionalismasystematicreviewofinstrumentsandtheirmeasurementproperties
AT zhangyuanyuan assessingmedicalprofessionalismasystematicreviewofinstrumentsandtheirmeasurementproperties
AT liuyang assessingmedicalprofessionalismasystematicreviewofinstrumentsandtheirmeasurementproperties
AT wendeliang assessingmedicalprofessionalismasystematicreviewofinstrumentsandtheirmeasurementproperties