Search

Introduction: Suicide is among the leading causes of preventable death worldwide. The impact of suicide affects the personal, social and economic levels. Therefore, its prevention is a priority for public health systems. Previous studies seem to support the efficacy of providing active contact to people who have made a suicide attempt. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the efficacy of distance suicide prevention strategies implemented through synchronous technology-based interventions., Methods and Analysis: This protocol is designed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. The bibliographical searches were conducted in the databases PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science in April 2022, with no restrictions on the time of publication and limited to publications in English or Spanish. The search strategy was performed using free-text terms and Medical Subject Headings terms: suicide, follow-up, synchronous, remote, telehealth, telephone, hotline, video-conference and text message. Two reviewers will independently conduct study screening, selection process, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The analysis and synthesis of the results will be both qualitative and quantitative. A narrative synthesis, presented in a comprehensive table, will be performed and meta-analysis will be conducted, as appropriate, if sufficient data are provided., Ethics and Dissemination: The present review and meta-analysis will not require ethical approval, as it will use data collected from previously published primary studies. The findings of this review will be published in peer-reviewed journals and widely disseminated., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021275044., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DP has received grants and also served as a consultant or advisor for Rovi, Angelini, Janssen, Lundbeck and Servier. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: This meta-review aims to discuss the methodological, research and practical applications of tools that assess the measurement properties of instruments evaluating health-related quality of life (HRQoL) that have been reported in systematic reviews., Design: Meta-review., Methods: Electronic search from January 2008 to May 2020 was carried out on PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, WoS, Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) database, Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses., Results: A total of 246 systematic reviews were assessed. Concerning the quality of the review process, some methodological shortcomings were found, such as poor compliance with reporting or methodological guidelines. Regarding the procedures to assess the quality of measurement properties, 164 (66.6%) of reviewers applied one tool at least. Tool format and structure differed across standards or scientific traditions (ie, psychology, medicine and economics), but most assess both measurement properties and the usability of instruments. As far as the results and conclusions of systematic reviews are concerned, only 68 (27.5%) linked the intended use of the instrument to specific measurement properties (eg, evaluative use to responsiveness)., Conclusions: The reporting and methodological quality of reviews have increased over time, but there is still room for improvement regarding adherence to guidelines. The COSMIN would be the most widespread and comprehensive tool to assess both the risk of bias of primary studies, and the measurement properties of HRQoL instruments for evaluative purposes. Our analysis of other assessment tools and measurement standards can serve as a starting point for future lines of work on the COSMIN tool, such as considering a more comprehensive evaluation of feasibility, including burden and fairness; expanding its scope for measurement instruments with a different use than evaluative; and improving its assessment of the risk of bias of primary studies., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42017065232., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Recent studies into the factorial structure of the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) have shown that it was best represented by a single substantive factor when method effects associated with negatively worded (NW) items are considered. The purpose of the present study was to examine the presence of method effects, and their relationships with demographic covariates, associated with positively worded (PW) and/or NW items., Design: A cross-sectional, observational study to compare a comprehensive set of confirmatory factor models, including method effects associated with PW and/or NW items with GHQ-12 responses., Setting: Representative sample of all employees living in Catalonia (Spain)., Participants: 3050 participants (44.6% women) who responded the Second Catalonian Survey of Working Conditions., Results: A confirmatory factor analysis showed that the best fitting model was a unidimensional model with two additional uncorrelated method factors associated with PW and NW items. Furthermore, structural equation modelling (SEM) revealed that method effects were differentially related to both the sex and age of the respondents., Conclusion: Individual differences related to sex and age can help to identify respondents who are prone to answering PW and NW items differently. Consequently, it is desirable that both the constructs of interest as well as the effects of method factors are considered in SEM models as a means of avoiding the drawing of inaccurate conclusions about the relationships between the substantive factors., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Using specific tools to assess the measurement properties of health status instruments is recommended both to standardise the review process and to improve the methodological quality of systematic reviews. However, depending on the measurement standards on which these tools are developed, the approach to appraise the measurement properties of instruments may vary. For this reason, the present meta-review aims to: (1) identify systematic reviews assessing the measurement properties of instruments evaluating health-related quality of life (HRQoL); (2) identify the tools applied to assess the measurement properties of HRQoL instruments; (3) describe the characteristics of the tools applied to assess the measurement properties of HRQoL instruments; (4) identify the measurement standards on which these tools were developed or conform to and (5) compare the similarities and differences among the identified measurement standards., Methods and Analysis: A systematic review will be conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols Guidelines. Electronic search will be carried out on bibliographic databases, including PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Psychological Information, SCOPUS, Web of Science, COSMIN database and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, being limited by time (2008-2018) and language (English). Descriptive analyses of different aspects of tools applied to evaluate the measurement properties of HRQoL instruments will be presented; the different measurement standards will be described and some recommendations about the methodological and research applications will be made., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval is not necessary for systematic review protocols. The results will be disseminated by its publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42017065232., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)