4.5 Review

Instruments to measure skills and knowledge of physicians and medical students in palliative care: A systematic review of psychometric properties

期刊

MEDICAL TEACHER
卷 44, 期 10, 页码 1133-1145

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2022.2067033

关键词

Palliative care; knowledge; questionnaires; legal medicine; education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluates the psychometric properties of knowledge and skills questionnaires used in palliative care and recommends PEACE-Q and PCKT as the preferred choice for assessing palliative care knowledge and skills in physicians.
Purpose Palliative care is constantly increasing around the world. The knowledge and skills of future physicians in this area are crucial. This study evaluates the psychometric properties of knowledge and skills questionnaires used in palliative care, validated by physicians or medical students based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Methods A systematic review was carried out in Cosmin Databases, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, SciELO, Cinahl, and Medline up to September 2020 (updated June 2021), based on the COSMIN methodology and PRISMA recommendations. The psychometric properties of each included questionnaire were identified. Methodological quality, quality of results, and quality of evidence were evaluated. Results The search strategy yielded 12 questionnaires assessing the knowledge and skills of physicians or medical students. The Palliative Care Knowledge Questionnaire for PEACE (PEACE-Q) and Palliative Care Knowledge Test (PCKT) were the instruments with the highest scores for methodological quality, quality of results, and quality of evidence-based on the COSMIN methodology. Conclusions PEACE-Q and PCKT should be the preferred choice to assess palliative care knowledge and skills in physicians. In-depth studies following COSMIN validation criteria are recommended to improve the psychometric properties and cross-cultural validation of the questionnaires.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据