Methodological quality of dignity‐related patient reported outcome measures used in acute hospital settings: A systematic review using the COSMIN methodology

Abstract

AbstractAims and ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to examine the methodological quality of dignity‐related patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to measure patients' dignity during acute hospitalisation using the Consensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology for systematic review of PROMs.BackgroundPrevious scoping review studies on the methodological quality of dignity‐related PROMs lack specificity for dignity during acute hospital admission. They included PROMs that were developed to measure constructs of care other than patient dignity or designed to measure dignity in contexts outside of the acute hospital setting.Study DesignA systematic review based on COSMIN methodology.MethodsA systematic search was undertaken using five databases (CINAHL Complete, Medline Complete, EMBASE, PsycINFo and AgeLine) for articles published between 2000 and 2022. Relevant papers were identified using strict adherence to eligibility criteria, and studies that included development of dignity‐related PROMs for use in acute hospital settings were selected. Two reviewers independently screened the identified papers, extracted data and examined the quality of studies.ResultsSix papers met the inclusion criteria. Two PROMs, the 25‐item Patient Dignity Inventory and the 34‐item Inpatient Dignity Scale, met the COSMIN quality criteria because of their sufficient quality of evidence for content validity and reliable internal consistency. None of the PROMs met the quality criteria for assessment of measurement error, criterion validity, cross‐cultural validity and responsiveness.ConclusionWe recommend the Patient Dignity Inventory and the Inpatient Dignity Scale as the PROMs of choice for evaluating patients' dignity and/or dignified care during acute hospital admissions. These PROMs were developed using robust procedures with sufficient overall quality for content validity, internal consistency reliability and other measurement properties, and with moderate to high quality of evidence for these measurement properties. Researchers and clinicians who wish to use other dignity‐related PROMs identified in this review should consider the methodological limitations of these PROMs, as highlighted in the present systematic review.Relevance to clinical practiceThe review findings will guide healthcare professionals about their choice of patient reported outcome measures for evaluating patients' dignity or dignified care during acute hospitalisation.