背景:以人为中心的护理是提供高质量医疗服务的组成部分,尽管概念各不相同,文献也很复杂。衡量以人为本的从业者技能的经过验证的仪器,和协商中的行为,有很多原因需要,包括培训方案。我们的目标是通过对现有的验证研究的综述进行系统的综述,以评估以人为中心的从业者技能和咨询行为。目标是对这些审查进行批判性评估,并总结可用的验证工具和支持它们的证据。
方法:对Medline的系统搜索,EMBASE,PsycINFO和CINAHL于2020年9月进行。包括测量个体从业者以人为本的咨询技能或报告测量特性的行为的仪器的验证研究的系统评价。使用JoannaBriggs研究所关键评估清单对审查质量进行了评估,以进行系统审查和研究综合。评论的细节,包括的验证研究,仪器本身是列表的,包括心理测量数据,并提供了评论的叙述概述。
结果:有4条评论符合纳入条件。这些使用了以人为中心的不同概念化和针对性不同,有时是相互排斥的,从业者和设置。四项审查包括68项独特的验证研究,检查了42种仪器,但重叠很少。批判性评估表明,需要改进这一领域的审查设计。这些审查中包含的工具尚未经过广泛的验证研究。
结论:有许多工具可以用来衡量医疗保健从业人员以人为本的技能,这项研究为研究人员和研究用户提供了一个指南。已经开发的最相关和最有前途的工具,或其中的物品,应该进一步严格研究。需要对现有材料进行验证研究,而不是制定新措施。
BACKGROUND: Person-centred care is integral to high-quality health service provision, though concepts vary and the literature is complex. Validated instruments that measure person-centred practitioner skills, and behaviours within consultations, are needed for many reasons, including in training programmes. We aimed to provide a high-level synthesis of what was expected to be a large and diverse literature through a systematic
review of existing reviews of validation studies a of instruments that measure person-centred practitioner skills and behaviours in consultations. The objectives were to undertake a critical appraisal of these reviews, and to summarise the available validated instruments and the evidence underpinning them.
METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL was conducted in September 2020. Systematic reviews of validation studies of instruments measuring individual practitioner person-centred consultation skills or behaviours which report measurement properties were included.
Review quality was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. Details of the reviews, the included validation studies, and the instruments themselves are tabulated, including psychometric data, and a narrative overview of the reviews is provided.
RESULTS: Four reviews were eligible for inclusion. These used different conceptualisations of person-centredness and targeted distinct, sometimes mutually exclusive, practitioners and settings. The four reviews included 68 unique validation studies examining 42 instruments, but with very few overlaps. The critical appraisal shows there is a need for improvements in the design of reviews in this area. The instruments included within these reviews have not been subject to extensive validation study.
CONCLUSIONS: There are many instruments available which measure person-centred skills in healthcare practitioners and this study offers a guide to what is available to researchers and research users. The most relevant and promising instruments that have already been developed, or items within them, should be further studied rigorously. Validation study of existing material is needed, not the development of new measures.