BACKGROUND: Medication Treatment Satisfaction (M-TS) from the patients\' perspective is important for comprehensively evaluating the effect of medicines. The extent to which current patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for M-TS are valid, reliable, responsive, and interpretable remains unclear. To assess the measurement properties of existing PROMs for M-TS and to highlight research gaps.
METHODS: Using PubMed, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane library (Ovid), IPA (Ovid), PsycINFO, Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Questionnaires biomedical databases, and four Chinese databases, we performed a systematic search for studies addressing the development and validation of PROMs for M-TS. Based on the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline, pairs of reviewers independently assessed the measurement properties of the PROMs and rated the quality of evidence on the measurement properties of each PROM. (The Open Science Framework registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8S5ZM ).
RESULTS: This review identified 69 PROMs for M-TS in 114 studies (four generic, 32 disease-specific, and 33 drug-specific) of which 60 were intended for adults. All provided limited or no information regarding interpretability. Most demonstrated appropriate construct validity including convergent validity (39/69) and discriminative or known-groups validity (40/69) (high to moderate quality of evidence). Only a few provided evidence of sufficient content validity (8/69), structural validity (13/69), and internal consistency (11/69). Of 38 PROMs reporting test-retest reliability, results in 24 provided evidence of satisfactory test-retest reliability (18 with high to moderate, 6 with low to very low quality of evidence). Few PROMs reported responsiveness (16/69). Two generic PROMs (Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication initial Version 1.4, TSQM-1.4; Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire, SATMED-Q) and one drug-specific PROM (Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, ITSQ) demonstrated both satisfactory validity and reliability.
CONCLUSIONS: Most existing PROMs for M-TS require further exploration of measurement properties. Reporting guidelines are needed to enhance the reporting quality of the development and validation of PROMs for M-TS.

The Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 (PDMS-2) has been used to assess the gross and fine motor skills of children (0-6 years); however, the measurement properties of the PDMS-2 are inconclusive. Here, we aimed to systematically review the measurement properties of PDMS-2, and synthesize the quality of evidence using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurements Instruments (COSMIN) methodology. Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL and MEDLINE, were searched for relevant studies through January 2023; these studies used PDMS-2. The methodological quality of each study was assessed by the COSMIN risk-of-bias checklist, and the measurement properties of PDMS-2 were evaluated by the COSMIN quality criteria. Modified GRADE was used to evaluate the quality of the evidence. We included a total of 22 articles in the assessment. Among the assessed measurement properties, the content validity of PDMS-2 was found to be sufficient with moderate-quality evidence. The structural validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability and interrater reliability of the PDMS-2 were sufficient for high-quality evidence, while the intrarater reliability was sufficient for moderate-quality evidence. Sufficient high-quality evidence was also found for the measurement error of PDMS-2. The overall construct validity of the PDMS-2 was sufficient but showed inconsistent quality of evidence. The responsiveness of PDMS-2 appears to be sufficient with low-quality evidence. Our findings demonstrate that the PDMS-2 has sufficient content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability and measurement error with moderate to high-quality evidence. Therefore, PDMS-2 is graded as \'A\' and can be used in motor development research and clinical settings.

UNASSIGNED: To summarize the contents and assess the methodological quality and measurement properties of the patient-reported outcome (PRO) scales featured with Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) for respiratory diseases based on the guideline of COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN).
UNASSIGNED: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, VIP, and China Biology Medicine (CBM) were searched for studies on PRO scales featured with TCM for respiratory diseases from their inception until December 2022. The characteristics of the PRO scales were qualitatively summarized. Following the COSMIN guideline, the risk of bias was assessed according to the checklist, and different measurement properties (content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, criterion validity, and responsiveness) were evaluated. Finally, the evidence\'s overall quality was assessed, and the recommendation was formulated using the modified GRADE approach.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 13 scales were included, with 6 for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 3 for lung cancer, 2 for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), 1 for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), and 1 for bronchiectasis. All 13 scales are disease-specific scales and were developed based on Chinese cultural background to measure the efficacy of TCM. The study did not provide information on measurement error, cross-cultural validity, and hypothesis testing for the construct validity of these measures. No scale was rated as sufficient in content validity and responsiveness. Two scales showed sufficient structural validity, while 11 scales exhibited sufficient internal consistency. Three scales demonstrated sufficient reliability, and 7 scales showed sufficient criterion validity. All 13 scales have a recommendation level of B.
UNASSIGNED: The 13 scales could reflect the clinical efficacy of TCM and are suitable for the Chinese population. Nevertheless, the validation of these scales was not comprehensive enough, and the methodological quality of their studies needs to be further strengthened.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review was to evaluate and summarise the measurement properties of nursing research competence instruments and provide a summary overview of the use of nursing research competence instruments.
BACKGROUND: Increasing nursing research competence instruments have been developed. However, a systematic review and evaluation of nursing research competence instruments is lacking.
METHODS: This scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute updated methodology for scoping reviews and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. Reviewers searched articles in Eight English databases and two Chinese databases between April 1st, 2022, and April 30th, 2022. An updated literature search was conducted between March 1st and March 4th, 2023. The literature screening and data extraction were conducted by two reviewers, independently. A third reviewer was involved when consensus was needed. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments methodology was used to evaluate the methodological quality and measurement properties of the nursing research competence instruments.
RESULTS: Ten studies involving eight nursing research competence instruments were included. None of the existing instruments have assessed all measurement properties. A total of 177 empirical studies have utilized a nursing research competence instrument with tested measurement properties.
CONCLUSIONS: \'Self-evaluated Nursing Research Capacity of Questionnaire (refined)\' was identified as the most appropriate nursing research competence instrument in existing instruments. However, reviewers need to conduct further measurement properties studies on the existing nursing research competence instruments.
UNASSIGNED: This study could guide the selection of appropriate nursing research competence instruments which could help to evaluate the nursing research competence of nurses and inform the development of intervention plans to enhance nursing research competence.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a major public health problem resulting in a significant impediment to equal participation, quality of life, and personal, social, and economic development. At present, a variety of screening instruments for IPV have emerged in developed countries, and some of them have been adapted to the language and culture of different countries, such as Hurt, Insult, Threaten, Scream (HITS) and the Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS). The selection of the most appropriate IPV screening instrument for the target population and context from among those instruments has become difficult for researchers when intending to start screening. Therefore, a systemic review of IPV screening instruments is needed. This protocol describes a COSMIN-based systematic review of the measurement properties of these instruments. The aims of the systematic review are to (1) evaluate the methodological quality of studies on the measurement properties including the validity, reliability, and internal consistency of these IPV screening instruments, and (2) provide suggestions for relevant researchers in their local context for using the IPV screening instruments.

This study aimed to systematically review studies of the psychometric properties of the self-rated successful aging inventory (SAI). The literature was rigorously searched from July 2018 to February 2021 and relevant studies were selected and evaluated following the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments guidelines. A total of 23 studies were included, in which 19 instruments were identified. Due to the quality of the studies, only preliminary conclusions could be drawn. Seven instruments were graded \"A\" and recommended for use based on the available psychometric evidence. The remaining 12 SAI instruments were graded \"B\" and more research is required before they can be recommended. Based on this review, seven different types of the SAI could be considered for use. To improve the quality of evidence, the SAI requires more rigorous research and precise reports. When using the SAI, it is important to consider cultural characteristics.