Search

Background The 2018 Phoenix Australia Clinical Practice Guidelines for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) recommended that practitioners use validated, user-friendly self-report measures for PTSD in their practice. However, selecting which measure to use can be difficult as there are currently no guidelines for selection. This research sought to evaluate self-report outcome measures for adults with PTSD and produce recommendations to guide clinicians. Method A systematic search was use qd to identify relevant articles and a comprehensive list of the existing measures of PTSD symptoms were extracted. A second search for validation papers for these measures was then conducted. Using these validation papers, measures were evaluated for their psychometric properties and utility for clinical practice via a purpose-built evaluation tool. Findings Twenty-two self-report outcome measures for PTSD were extracted from 256 randomised controlled trials. For these measures, 110 validation papers were located. For nonspecific trauma exposure populations, the PCL-5 and SPRINT were found to be the most psychometrically valid measures, with the highest scoring clinical utility. The measures for 12 specific trauma exposure populations were examined and discussed. Conclusion This paper has direct clinical relevance for working with individuals with PTSD and provides researchers and clinicians with justification for outcome measure selection. KEY POINTS What is already known about this topic: It is recommended that clinicians use validated, user-friendly self-report measures to support their assessments of treatment outcomes over time for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Clinicians may struggle to select which measure to use in their practice when faced with a plethora of choice regarding outcome measures for PTSD, especially given the impact of the DSM-5 update. The differences between measures which are utilised frequently (i.e. ‘common’ measures) and measures with good psychometric properties (i.e. validated measures) and those with good clinical utility (i.e. usability) can be difficult to understand What this topic adds: This paper used systematic review methodology was used to identify & evaluate a comprehensive list of self-report outcome measures for PTSD since the DSM-5 update in 2013 and the populations that they should be used with. For non-specific trauma exposure populations, the PCL-5 and SPRINT were found to be the most psychometrically valid measures, with the highest scoring clinical utility. The most psychometrically valid measures, with the highest scoring clinical utility for twelve specific trauma exposure populations are also presented.

The 2018 Phoenix Australia Clinical Practice Guidelines for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) recommended that practitioners use validated, user-friendly self-report measures for PTSD in their practice. However, selecting which measure to use can be difficult as there are currently no guidelines for selection. This research sought to evaluate self-report outcome measures for adults with PTSD and produce recommendations to guide clinicians. A systematic search was use qd to identify relevant articles and a comprehensive list of the existing measures of PTSD symptoms were extracted. A second search for validation papers for these measures was then conducted. Using these validation papers, measures were evaluated for their psychometric properties and utility for clinical practice via a purpose-built evaluation tool. Twenty-two self-report outcome measures for PTSD were extracted from 256 randomised controlled trials. For these measures, 110 validation papers were located. For nonspecific trauma exposure populations, the PCL-5 and SPRINT were found to be the most psychometrically valid measures, with the highest scoring clinical utility. The measures for 12 specific trauma exposure populations were examined and discussed. This paper has direct clinical relevance for working with individuals with PTSD and provides researchers and clinicians with justification for outcome measure selection. KEY POINTS What is already known about this topic: It is recommended that clinicians use validated, user-friendly self-report measures to support their assessments of treatment outcomes over time for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Clinicians may struggle to select which measure to use in their practice when faced with a plethora of choice regarding outcome measures for PTSD, especially given the impact of the DSM-5 update. The differences between measures which are utilised frequently (i.e. 'common' measures) and measures with good psychometric properties (i.e. validated measures) and those with good clinical utility (i.e. usability) can be difficult to understand What this topic adds: This paper used systematic review methodology was used to identify & evaluate a comprehensive list of self-report outcome measures for PTSD since the DSM-5 update in 2013 and the populations that they should be used with. For non-specific trauma exposure populations, the PCL-5 and SPRINT were found to be the most psychometrically valid measures, with the highest scoring clinical utility. The most psychometrically valid measures, with the highest scoring clinical utility for twelve specific trauma exposure populations are also presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many self-report outcome measures (SROMs) exist for measuring Quality of Life (QoL) in patients with painful temporomandibular disorders (TMD). However, it is uncertain which SROM(s) is/are best suited for research and clinical practice. The aims were to (1) identify clinimetrically sound SROMs for QoL in patients with painful TMD and (2) determine if impaired QoL has diagnostic or prognostic value for this population. PRISMA guidelines were utilized during a systematic search of: CINAHL, Dentistry & Oral Science Source, PsychALL, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies involving adult populations with painful TMD who were assessed for QoL were included. Risks of biases were examined. 23 studies were included; 8 clinimetric studies primarily validated language translation whereas other studies were diagnostic (n = 14) or prognostic (n = 1). Of the eight identified SROMs assessed, only the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-49, OHIP-TMD (OHIP-22), OHIP-14, and the SF-36 are valid and reliable in painful TMD. In regards to the diagnostic studies, both region- and non-region-specific QoL SROMs associated presence of TMD with poor QoL. Study heterogeneity prohibited meta-analysis. The SF-12 demonstrated prognostic capabilities. For region-specific SROMs, the OHIP-49, -TMD/-22, and −14 are available to clinicians in multiple languages to capture QoL in patients with painful TMD. For clinicians interested in overall QoL, the SF-36 was found to be valid in this population. Emerging evidence has shown that baseline QoL can predict future outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article describes some of the challenges involved in the selection of self‐report outcome measures for use in family and systemic therapeutic services, and potential ways of overcoming them. It highlights factors that may undermine the demonstration of the effectiveness of services related to the characteristics of services, client groups and the measures themselves. Choosing appropriate self‐report outcome measures is particularly difficult for practitioners responding flexibly to the needs of heterogeneous client groups and those working with multiple family members. Measures need to be acceptable to both clients and practitioners, addressing constructs relevant to individual and systemic level change, and incorporating features that enhance sensitivity to client change. Possible solutions are discussed, with the aim of enabling services to make more informed choices when selecting outcome measures for use in the monitoring and evaluation of family and systemic therapy. Practitioner points: Develop a logic model to identify possible mechanisms of change and key impacts.For heterogeneous client groups, consider assessing overarching constructs or using idiographic in addition to nomothetic approaches.To enhance the chances of capturing change within a family system, use more than one instrument and ask different family members to complete them.Select measures with appropriate language, structure and length for piloting with clients and practitioners. 选择用于家庭和系统治疗的自我报告式疗效指标 本文描述了在选择用于家庭和系统治疗过程中的自我报告式疗效指标时存在的一些挑战, 以及一些可能的应对方法。文中突出了一些可能影响疗效呈现的因素, 这些因素与治疗过程的特点、来访者类型以及指标本身有关。对于需要灵活回应不同类型的来访者和同时与多个家庭成员开展工作的从业者来说, 选择一种合适的自我报告式疗效指标是尤其困难的。指标需要被来访者和从业者双方接受, 针对个人和系统层面改变的概念, 并且包含某些特征以增强对于来访者变化的敏感度。本文讨论了可能的解决方式, 目的在于帮助家庭治疗服务机构在选择用于监督和评估家庭和系统治疗的疗效指标时做出更加明智的决定。 对实务工作者的启示: 开发一套逻辑模型以识别变化的种种可能机制及其关键影响。对于不同类型的来访者, 考虑评估首要概念, 或者用个案代替通则式研究方法。为了增加在家庭系统中捕捉到变化的机会, 应使用不止一种测量工具, 并让不同的家庭成员参与完成。为来访者和从业者参与的初步研究选择语言、结构和长度合适的指标。 关键词：自我报告式疗效指标；家庭和系统治疗；评估；判定变化 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined the application of outcome measures to determine changes in function caused by standardized functional prosthetic gait training and the use of four different prosthetic feet in people with unilateral transtibial limb loss. Two self-report measures (Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Scale [PEQ-13] and Locomotor Capabilities Index [LCI]), and three performance-based measures (Amputee Mobility Predictor with a prosthesis [AMPPRO], 6-minute walk test [6MWT] and step activity monitor [SAM]) were used. Ten people with unilateral transtibial limb loss, five with peripheral vascular disease (PVD) and five without PVD, completed testing. Subjects were tested at baseline and after receiving training with their existing prosthesis and with the study socket and four prosthetic feet, i.e., SACH (solid ankle cushion heel), SAFE (stationary attachment flexible endoskeletal), Talux, and Proprio feet, over 8 to 10 weeks. Training was administered between testing sessions. No differences were detected by the PEQ-13, LCI, 6MWT, or SAM following training and after fitting with test feet. The AMPPRO demonstrated differences following training with the existing prosthesis in the PVD group and between selected feet from baseline testing (p

Measuring quality of life is a necessity for adequate interventions. This paper concerns the usefulness of six self-report measures for overall quality of life for nursing home residents with various levels of cognitive impairment. It was investigated which proportion of residents from four cognition groups could complete a scale, and internal consistency and construct validity of the scales were studied. Data collection took place in ten Dutch nursing homes ( N = 227). The proportion of residents that could complete each scale varied. The Depression List could be administered most often to the cognitively most impaired group (43%; Mini Mental State Examination-scores 0–4). In the three cognition groups with MMSE-score >5, internal consistency of the Depression List, Geriatric Depression Scale and Negative Affect Scale was adequate in all three groups (alpha ≥.68). Intercorrelation was highest for the Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale, the Depression List, and the Geriatric Depression Scale (rho ≥.65). Nonetheless, self-report scales were not strongly correlated with two observational scales for depression, especially in cognitively severely impaired residents (rho ≤.30). In conclusion, it may not be possible to measure overall quality of life through self-report, and possibly also through observation, in many nursing home residents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]