Methodological Quality of PROMs in Psychosocial Consequences of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Methodological Quality of PROMs in Psychosocial Consequences of Colorectal Cancer Screening : A Systematic Review. / Gram, Emma Grundtvig; Rogvi, Jessica á; Agerbeck, Anders Heiberg; Martiny, Frederik; Bie, Anne Katrine Lykke; Brodersen, John Brandt.

In: Patient Related Outcome Measures, Vol. 14, 2023, p. 31-47.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Gram, EG, Rogvi, JÁ, Agerbeck, AH, Martiny, F, Bie, AKL & Brodersen, JB 2023, 'Methodological Quality of PROMs in Psychosocial Consequences of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review', Patient Related Outcome Measures, vol. 14, pp. 31-47. https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S394247

APA

Gram, E. G., Rogvi, J. Á., Agerbeck, A. H., Martiny, F., Bie, A. K. L., & Brodersen, J. B. (2023). Methodological Quality of PROMs in Psychosocial Consequences of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review. Patient Related Outcome Measures, 14, 31-47. https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S394247

Vancouver

Gram EG, Rogvi JÁ, Agerbeck AH, Martiny F, Bie AKL, Brodersen JB. Methodological Quality of PROMs in Psychosocial Consequences of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review. Patient Related Outcome Measures. 2023;14:31-47. https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S394247

Author

Gram, Emma Grundtvig ; Rogvi, Jessica á ; Agerbeck, Anders Heiberg ; Martiny, Frederik ; Bie, Anne Katrine Lykke ; Brodersen, John Brandt. / Methodological Quality of PROMs in Psychosocial Consequences of Colorectal Cancer Screening : A Systematic Review. In: Patient Related Outcome Measures. 2023 ; Vol. 14. pp. 31-47.

Bibtex

@article{6d34c0df871144ea9cfb5d3005a0bdc3,
title = "Methodological Quality of PROMs in Psychosocial Consequences of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review",
abstract = "Objective: This systematic review aimed to assess the adequacy of measurement properties in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used to quantify psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening among adults at average risk.Methods: We searched four databases for eligible studies: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase. Our approach was inclusive and encompassed all empirical studies that quantified aspects of psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. We assessed the adequacy of PROM development and measurement properties for content validity using The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist.Results: We included 33 studies that all together used 30 different outcome measures. Two PROMs (6.7%) were developed in a colorectal cancer screening context. COSMIN rating for PROM development was inadequate for 29 out of 30 PROMs (97%). PROMs lacked proper cognitive interviews and pilot studies and therefore had no proven content validity. According to the COSMIN checklist, 27 out of 30 PROMs (90%) had inadequate measurement properties for content validity.Discussion: The majority of included PROMs had inadequate development and measurement properties. These findings shed light on the trustworthiness of the included studies{\textquoteright} findings and call for reevaluation of existing evidence on the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. To provide trustworthy evidence about the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening, editors could require that studies provide evidence of the methodological quality of the PROM. Alternatively, authors should transparently disclose their studies{\textquoteright} methodological limitations in measuring psychosocial consequences of screening validly.",
author = "Gram, {Emma Grundtvig} and Rogvi, {Jessica {\'a}} and Agerbeck, {Anders Heiberg} and Frederik Martiny and Bie, {Anne Katrine Lykke} and Brodersen, {John Brandt}",
year = "2023",
doi = "10.2147/PROM.S394247",
language = "Udefineret/Ukendt",
volume = "14",
pages = "31--47",
journal = "Patient Related Outcome Measures",
issn = "1179-271X",
publisher = "Dove Medical Press Ltd",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Methodological Quality of PROMs in Psychosocial Consequences of Colorectal Cancer Screening

T2 - A Systematic Review

AU - Gram, Emma Grundtvig

AU - Rogvi, Jessica á

AU - Agerbeck, Anders Heiberg

AU - Martiny, Frederik

AU - Bie, Anne Katrine Lykke

AU - Brodersen, John Brandt

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - Objective: This systematic review aimed to assess the adequacy of measurement properties in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used to quantify psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening among adults at average risk.Methods: We searched four databases for eligible studies: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase. Our approach was inclusive and encompassed all empirical studies that quantified aspects of psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. We assessed the adequacy of PROM development and measurement properties for content validity using The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist.Results: We included 33 studies that all together used 30 different outcome measures. Two PROMs (6.7%) were developed in a colorectal cancer screening context. COSMIN rating for PROM development was inadequate for 29 out of 30 PROMs (97%). PROMs lacked proper cognitive interviews and pilot studies and therefore had no proven content validity. According to the COSMIN checklist, 27 out of 30 PROMs (90%) had inadequate measurement properties for content validity.Discussion: The majority of included PROMs had inadequate development and measurement properties. These findings shed light on the trustworthiness of the included studies’ findings and call for reevaluation of existing evidence on the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. To provide trustworthy evidence about the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening, editors could require that studies provide evidence of the methodological quality of the PROM. Alternatively, authors should transparently disclose their studies’ methodological limitations in measuring psychosocial consequences of screening validly.

AB - Objective: This systematic review aimed to assess the adequacy of measurement properties in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used to quantify psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening among adults at average risk.Methods: We searched four databases for eligible studies: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase. Our approach was inclusive and encompassed all empirical studies that quantified aspects of psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. We assessed the adequacy of PROM development and measurement properties for content validity using The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist.Results: We included 33 studies that all together used 30 different outcome measures. Two PROMs (6.7%) were developed in a colorectal cancer screening context. COSMIN rating for PROM development was inadequate for 29 out of 30 PROMs (97%). PROMs lacked proper cognitive interviews and pilot studies and therefore had no proven content validity. According to the COSMIN checklist, 27 out of 30 PROMs (90%) had inadequate measurement properties for content validity.Discussion: The majority of included PROMs had inadequate development and measurement properties. These findings shed light on the trustworthiness of the included studies’ findings and call for reevaluation of existing evidence on the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. To provide trustworthy evidence about the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening, editors could require that studies provide evidence of the methodological quality of the PROM. Alternatively, authors should transparently disclose their studies’ methodological limitations in measuring psychosocial consequences of screening validly.

U2 - 10.2147/PROM.S394247

DO - 10.2147/PROM.S394247

M3 - Tidsskriftartikel

C2 - 36941831

VL - 14

SP - 31

EP - 47

JO - Patient Related Outcome Measures

JF - Patient Related Outcome Measures

SN - 1179-271X

ER -

ID: 338941652