Social connection is important for long-term care (LTC) residents\' quality of life and care. However, there is a lack of consensus on how to measure it and this limits ability to find what improves and impairs social connection in LTC homes. We therefore aimed to systematically review and evaluate the measurement properties of existing measures of social connection for LTC residents, to identify which, if any, measures can be recommended. We searched eight electronic databases from inception to April 2022 for studies which reported on psychometric properties of a measure of any aspect(s) of social connection (including social networks, interaction, engagement, support, isolation, connectedness, and loneliness) for LTC residents. We used COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines to evaluate the measurement properties reported for each identified measure and make recommendations. We identified 62 studies reporting on 38 measures; 21 measured quality of life, well-being or life satisfaction and included a social connection subscale or standalone items and 17 measures specifically targeted social connection. We found there was little high-quality evidence on psychometric properties such as sufficient content validity (n = 0), structural validity (n = 3), internal consistency (n = 3), reliability (n = 1), measurement error (n = 0), construct validity (n = 4), criterion validity (n = 0) and responsiveness (n = 0). No measures demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties on all these aspects, so none could be recommended for use. Thirty-four measures have the potential to be recommended but require further research to assess their quality and the remaining four are not recommended for use. Our review therefore found that no existing measures have sufficient evidence to be recommended for assessment of social connection in residents of LTC homes. Further validation and reliability studies of existing instruments or the development of new measures are needed to enable accurate measurement of social connection in LTC residents for future observational and interventional studies.
UNASSIGNED: Social connection is fundamental to person-centered care in long-term care homes.There is insufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of existing measures.No current measures can be recommended for use based on existing evidence.A reliable and valid measure of social connection is needed for future research.

BACKGROUND: Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of video consultation (VC) in primary care has expanded considerably in many countries. VC and other telehealth formats are often touted as a solution to improved health care access, with numerous studies showing high satisfaction with this care format among health professionals and patients. However, operationalization and measurement of patient satisfaction with VC varies across studies and often lacks consideration of dynamic contextual factors (eg, convenience, ease-of-use, or privacy) and doctor-patient relational variables that may influence patient satisfaction.
OBJECTIVE: We aim to develop a comprehensive and evidence-based questionnaire for assessing patient satisfaction with VC in general practice.
METHODS: The vCare Patient-Satisfaction Questionnaire (the vCare-PSQ) was developed according to the COSMIN (Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) guidelines. To achieve our overall objective, we pursued three aims: (1) a validation analysis of an existing patient-satisfaction scale (the PS-14), (2) an assessment of extrinsic contextual factors that may impact patient satisfaction, and (3) an assessment of pertinent intrinsic and relational satisfaction correlates (eg, health anxiety, information technology literacy, trust in the general practitioner, or convenience). For validation purposes, the questionnaire was filled out by a convenience sample of 188 Danish adults who had attended at least 1 VC.
RESULTS: Our validation analysis of the PS-14 in a Danish population produced reliable results, indicating that the PS-14 is an appropriate measure of patient satisfaction with VC in Danish patient populations. Regressing situational and doctor-patient relational factors onto patient satisfaction further suggested that patient satisfaction is contingent on several factors not measured by the PS-14. These include information technology literacy and patient trust in the general practitioner, as well as several contextual pros and cons.
CONCLUSIONS: Supplementing the PS-14 with dynamic measures of situational and doctor-patient relational factors may provide a more comprehensive understanding of patient satisfaction with VC. The vCare-PSQ may thus contribute to an enhanced methodological approach to assessing patient satisfaction with VC. We hope that the vCare-PSQ format may be useful for future research and implementation efforts regarding VC in a general practice setting.

BACKGROUND: Despite developing a polypharmacy core outcome set (COS) in primary care, it is not clear how these outcomes should be measured.
OBJECTIVE: To select outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) for a COS targeting appropriate polypharmacy in older patients in primary care.
METHODS: Following the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline, OMIs were identified from a Cochrane review focusing on appropriate polypharmacy. The quality of OMIs was assessed using a published checklist. Subsequently, two rounds of Delphi questionnaires were conducted via the SoGoSurvey® platform, engaging stakeholders (researchers, clinicians and journal editors specialising in geriatric primary care) to achieve consensus on OMIs using a scale encompassing \"agree\", \"disagree\", or \"unsure\". Consensus was achieved if 70% or more participants chose \"agree\" and 15% or fewer chose \"disagree.\"
RESULTS: The quality of 20 OMIs identified from the Cochrane review was evaluated. Seven OMIs were selected based on meeting the COSMIN guideline\'s minimum requirements. Out of 188 potential participants, 57 (30.3%) consented to participate. Rounds 1 and 2 of Delphi exercises were completed by 50 respondents, achieving agreement on three OMIs: \'number of serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs)\' (98%), \'number of deaths\' (76%), and \'number of patients who fell\' (70%) for measuring \'serious ADRs,\' \'mortality,\' and \'falls,\' respectively. No agreement was reached for \'medication appropriateness,\' \'medication side-effects,\' \'quality of life,\' and \'medication regimen complexity.\'
CONCLUSIONS: OMIs were selected for a limited number of outcomes in the polypharmacy COS. Future research should identify suitable OMIs for the remaining four outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Given the recent evidence on gender differences in the presentation of autism, there is an increasing concern that current tools for autism do not adequately capture traits more often found in women. If tools for autism measure autistic traits differently based on gender alone, their validity may be compromised as they may not be measuring the same construct across genders. Measurement invariance investigations of autism measures can help assess the validity of autism constructs for different genders. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and critically appraise the psychometric properties of all self-report tools for autism in adults that meet two criteria: (a) they have been published since or included in the NICE (2014) recommendations, and (b) they have undergone gender-related measurement invariance investigations as part of their validation process.
METHODS: A search of electronic databases will be conducted from 2014 until the present using MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO using predefined search terms to identify eligible studies. The search for grey literature will include sources such as OpenGrey, APA PsycEXTRA, and Scopus. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility. The references of included studies will be searched for additional records. The methodological quality of the studies will be evaluated using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, while psychometric quality of findings will be assessed based on criteria for good measurement properties and ConPsy checklist. The quality of the total body of evidence will be appraised using the approach outlined in the modified GRADE guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review will be among the first to assess the psychometric properties and gender-related measurement invariance of self-reported measures for autism in adults that were published since (or included in) NICE (2014) guidelines. The review will provide recommendations for the most suitable tool to assess for autism without gender bias. If no such measure is found, it will identify existing tools with promising psychometric properties that require further testing, or suggest developing a new measure.
BACKGROUND: The protocol has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). The registration number is CRD42023429350.

OBJECTIVE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.
METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.
RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review\'s title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.
CONCLUSIONS: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

OBJECTIVE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.
METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.
RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review\'s title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.
CONCLUSIONS: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

OBJECTIVE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.
METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.
RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review\'s title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.
CONCLUSIONS: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards.
METHODS: One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies\' findings.
RESULTS: A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.

OBJECTIVE: Large numbers of people are subject to alterations and pathologies in the foot. To quantify how these problems of foot function affect the quality of life, clinicians and researchers have developed measures such as the Foot Function Index (FFI). Our aim is to determine the methodological quality of the FFI including adaptations to other languages.
METHODS: The studies considered in this review were extracted from the PubMed, Embase and CINAHL databases. The inclusion criteria were followed: (1) studies of patients with no previous foot or ankle pathology and aged over 18 years; (2) based on English-language patient-reported outcome measures that assess foot function; (3) the patient-reported outcome measures should present measurement properties based on COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria.
METHODS: The systematic review was conducted following the COSMIN criteria to establish the methodological quality of the original FFI, together with its variants and adaptations. The last search was carried out in May 2024.
RESULTS: Of the 1994 studies obtained in the preliminary search, 20 were eligible for inclusion in the final analysis. These results are the validations and cross-cultural adaptations to the following languages: the original FFI has cross-cultural adaptation in 13 languages and the FFI-Revised Short Form has been adapted and validated for use in 2 languages.
CONCLUSIONS: In terms of methodological quality, the FFI-Revised Short Form questionnaire is a valuable instrument for evaluating ankle and foot function and could usefully be expanded to be available in more languages.

OBJECTIVE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.
METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.
RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review\'s title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.
CONCLUSIONS: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: This paper was jointly developed by Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Quality of Life Research, Journal of Patient Reported Outcomes, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes and jointly published by Elsevier Inc, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, and BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal\'s style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.