Childbirth experience assessment tools based on COSMIN guidelines:A systematic review  

分娩体验评估工具测量属性的系统评价

作　　者：Yifan Cheng Ruxue Bai Siyu Shan Xinmiao Zhao Chunling Xia 程逸帆;白茹雪;单思雨;赵鑫淼;夏春玲

机构地区：[1]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University,Shenyang,China

出　　处：《International Journal of Nursing Sciences》2025年第1期89-95,I0005,共8页国际护理科学(英文)

摘　　要：Objective:This study aimed to systematically evaluate the measurement characteristics and methodological quality of childbirth experience assessment tools,with a view to informing the selection of healthcare professionals who can provide high-quality assessment tools.Method:A systematic search was performed on specific databases:PubMed,Web of Science,Embase,CINAHL,SinoMed,China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI),and Wanfang,from inception to February 29,2024.The researchers retrieved studies on the measurement attributes of the childbirth experience assessment tool,and traced back the references of the included studies to supplement relevant literature.According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria,screening and data extraction were independently undertaken by two reviewers.Two researchers individually used the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments(COSMIN)Risk of Bias Checklist to assess the methodological quality of the scale,applied the COSMIN criteria to evaluate the measurement properties of the scale,and used a modified Grading of Recommendations,Assessment,Development,and Evaluation(GRADE)system to assess the certainty of evidence.Result:A total of 15 studies were included to evaluate the psychometric properties of 11 childbirth experience assessment tools(including different language versions).Eight studies’methodological quality of content validity was doubtful,and the remaining studies did not report content validity.None of the tools reported measurement error,cross-cultural validity,or responsiveness.In light of the questionable or unreported content validity of the tools,the evidence quality was deemed moderate or below.Consequently,the 11 assessment tools were recommended as grade B.Conclusion:In contrast,the Questionnaire for Assessing the Childbirth Experience(QACE)is recommended for provisional use,given its relatively good methodological and measurement attributes and appropriate content for evaluation.However,further validation of other measureme目的系统评价分娩体验评估工具的测量学特征及方法学质量,为医护人员选择高质量的评估工具提供参考。方法系统检索PubMed、Web of Science、Embase、CINAHL、SinoMed、中国知网及万方数据库中有关分娩体验评估工具测量属性的研究,检索时限自建库起至2024年2月29日,并追溯纳入文献的参考文献。两名研究人员按照纳入排除标准,独立筛选文献、提取数据,并使用COSMIN偏倚风险评价清单评估量表的方法学质量,使用COSMIN质量评价标准评估量表测量属性,使用改良版定量系统评价证据分级方法评价系统进行证据质量分级,最终形成推荐意见。结果共纳入15项研究,对11个分娩体验评估工具(包含不同语言版本)的心理测量学特征进行评价,8项研究报告的工具内容效度方法学质量为模糊,其余研究报告的工具未报告内容效度。所有评估工具均未报告工具的测量误差、跨文化效度及反应度;由于工具的内容有效性可疑或未报告,证据质量为中等或以下,建议将11个评估工具评为B级。结论相比之下,分娩体验评估问卷(Questionnaire for Assessing the Childbirth Experience,QACE)的方法学及测量属性相对质量较好、评价内容适当,可暂被推荐使用,但仍需进一步验证其他测量学特征。

关 键 词：Assessment tools COSMIN guidelines Childbirth experience Systematic review 

分 类 号：R473.71[医药卫生—护理学]