MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6939261635 · doi:10.60692/wcyrc-rsg05

Psychometric Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Assessing Self-Efficacy in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): A Systematic Review

2021· article· en· W6939261635 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoPublic Health OntarioMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatient-reported outcomePulmonary rehabilitationCOPDPsychometricsQuality of life (healthcare)Rating scaleConstruct validityAnxietyMEDLINERehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This systematic review aimed to synthesize the evidence of the psychometric properties of self-efficacy patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE and other common databases from inception until September 2020. Studies that reported psychometric properties of self-efficacy outcome measures in COPD patients were included. We used the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) 2018 guidelines for data extraction and evidence synthesis. Eighteen studies that assessed nine self-efficacy PROMs were eligible for inclusion. The assessment of structural validity indicated sufficient results rating for the Exercise Self-Regulatory Efficacy Scale and the Self-Care-Self-Efficacy Scale, and insufficient rating for the COPD Self-Efficacy Scale and the Pulmonary Rehabilitation Adaptation Index for Self-Efficacy (PRAISE). Construct validity measures displayed sufficient results rating with correlations ranging from −0.48 to − 0.71 between self-efficacy PROMs and other PROMs such as St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire. Internal consistency measures indicated sufficient rating for all self-efficacy PROMs with a Cronbach's alpha range of 0.71 − 0.98. Responsiveness was assessed for the PRAISE with an overall sufficient rating (effect sizes of 0.21 − 0.37). The evidence regarding the psychometric properties of self-efficacy PROMs in COPD is variable. The PRAISE is responsive to changes in self-efficacy in COPD patients attending a pulmonary rehabilitation program. When using self-efficacy PROMs in clinical practice or research, clinicians and researchers should consider the psychometric properties and choose the appropriate outcome measure based on the purpose.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.009
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information System→Same topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research→French-language works237,207→