A Review of Reviews of Patient-Reported Measures in Psychosis: Need to Consider Factors Affecting Equity and the Involvement of Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported measures are increasingly valued in psychosis care and research. For patient-reported measures to reflect patient perspectives, patients must be involved in developing them. Furthermore, their development and evaluation must consider sociodemographic characteristics influencing patient experiences and outcomes and measurement. As reviews reflect the state of the field and guide clinicians/researchers in selecting measures, our aim was to evaluate literature reviews of patient-reported measures on their consideration of factors affecting equity and patient involvement. Study Design: For this review of reviews, we searched 3 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO) for reviews on patient-reported measures in psychosis. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, and descriptively synthesized and appraised the quality of included reviews. Using Cochrane's PROGRESS-Plus and a Canadian equity framework, reviews were evaluated on their consideration of sociodemographic characteristics, accessibility, and patient involvement. Study Results: Of 10 reviews (6 systematic, 4 nonsystematic; 1111 studies; 313 measures), 6 limited their search to English. Barring 2 reviews that reported the age, gender, and countries of samples in included studies, the reviews did not extract/comment on population/sociodemographic characteristics. One commented on one measure's readability; none commented on the samples' literacy levels. Four reviews considered the availability of translations; only 1 evaluated cross-cultural validity. Only 2 considered the costs of measures. Only 1 evaluated patient involvement in developing patient-reported measures. One referenced equity frameworks/standards. Conclusions: Reviews of patient-reported measures in psychosis demonstrate minimal attention to equity and patient involvement. We offer recommendations to strengthen patient-reported measures research by attending to equity, social determinants, and patient-centrism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".