15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluation of measures of sustainability and sustainability determinants for use in community, public health, and clinical settings: a systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Sustainability is concerned with the long-term delivery and subsequent benefits of evidence-based interventions. To further this field, we require a strong understanding and thus measurement of sustainability and what impacts sustainability (i.e., sustainability determinants). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the quality and empirical application of measures of sustainability and sustainability determinants for use in clinical, public health, and community settings.

          Methods

          Seven electronic databases, reference lists of relevant reviews, online repositories of implementation measures, and the grey literature were searched. Publications were included if they reported on the development, psychometric evaluation, or empirical use of a multi-item, quantitative measure of sustainability, or sustainability determinants. Eligibility was not restricted by language or date. Eligibility screening and data extraction were conducted independently by two members of the research team. Content coverage of each measure was assessed by mapping measure items to relevant constructs of sustainability and sustainability determinants. The pragmatic and psychometric properties of included measures was assessed using the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS). The empirical use of each measure was descriptively analyzed.

          Results

          A total of 32,782 articles were screened from the database search, of which 37 were eligible. An additional 186 publications were identified from the grey literature search. The 223 included articles represented 28 individual measures, of which two assessed sustainability as an outcome, 25 covered sustainability determinants and one explicitly assessed both. The psychometric and pragmatic quality was variable, with PAPERS scores ranging from 14 to 35, out of a possible 56 points. The Provider Report of Sustainment Scale had the highest PAPERS score and measured sustainability as an outcome. The School-wide Universal Behaviour Sustainability Index-School Teams had the highest PAPERS score (score=29) of the measure of sustainability determinants.

          Conclusions

          This review can be used to guide selection of the most psychometrically robust, pragmatic, and relevant measure of sustainability and sustainability determinants. It also highlights that future research is needed to improve the psychometric and pragmatic quality of current measures in this field.

          Trial registration

          This review was prospectively registered with Research Registry (reviewregistry1097), March 2021.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-022-01252-1.

          Related collections

          Most cited references69

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap) is a novel workflow methodology and software solution designed for rapid development and deployment of electronic data capture tools to support clinical and translational research. We present: (1) a brief description of the REDCap metadata-driven software toolset; (2) detail concerning the capture and use of study-related metadata from scientific research teams; (3) measures of impact for REDCap; (4) details concerning a consortium network of domestic and international institutions collaborating on the project; and (5) strengths and limitations of the REDCap system. REDCap is currently supporting 286 translational research projects in a growing collaborative network including 27 active partner institutions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist

              Background The COSMIN checklist is a standardized tool for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties. It contains 9 boxes, each dealing with one measurement property, with 5–18 items per box about design aspects and statistical methods. Our aim was to develop a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist to calculate quality scores per measurement property when using the checklist in systematic reviews of measurement properties. Methods The scoring system was developed based on discussions among experts and testing of the scoring system on 46 articles from a systematic review. Four response options were defined for each COSMIN item (excellent, good, fair, and poor). A quality score per measurement property is obtained by taking the lowest rating of any item in a box (“worst score counts”). Results Specific criteria for excellent, good, fair, and poor quality for each COSMIN item are described. In defining the criteria, the “worst score counts” algorithm was taken into consideration. This means that only fatal flaws were defined as poor quality. The scores of the 46 articles show how the scoring system can be used to provide an overview of the methodological quality of studies included in a systematic review of measurement properties. Conclusions Based on experience in testing this scoring system on 46 articles, the COSMIN checklist with the proposed scoring system seems to be a useful tool for assessing the methodological quality of studies included in systematic reviews of measurement properties.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                alix.hall@newcastle.edu.au
                Journal
                Implement Sci
                Implement Sci
                Implementation Science : IS
                BioMed Central (London )
                1748-5908
                13 December 2022
                13 December 2022
                2022
                : 17
                : 81
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.266842.c, ISNI 0000 0000 8831 109X, School of Medicine and Public Health, , The University of Newcastle, ; Locked Bag 10 Wallsend, Callaghan, NSW Australia
                [2 ]GRID grid.266842.c, ISNI 0000 0000 8831 109X, Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, , The University of Newcastle, ; Callaghan, NSW Australia
                [3 ]GRID grid.413648.c, Hunter Medical Research Institute, ; New Lambton Heights, New South Wales Australia
                [4 ]GRID grid.3006.5, ISNI 0000 0004 0438 2042, Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, ; Wallsend, NSW Australia
                [5 ]GRID grid.488833.c, ISNI 0000 0004 0615 7519, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, ; Seattle, USA
                [6 ]GRID grid.34477.33, ISNI 0000000122986657, Department of Psychology, , University of Washington, ; Seattle, USA
                [7 ]GRID grid.1021.2, ISNI 0000 0001 0526 7079, School of Health Sciences and Social Development, , Deakin University, ; Melbourne, Victoria Australia
                [8 ]GRID grid.21729.3f, ISNI 0000000419368729, Mailman School of Public Health, Department of Sociomedical Sciences, , Columbia University, ; New York, New York USA
                [9 ]GRID grid.168010.e, ISNI 0000000419368956, Dissemination and Training Division, National Center for PTSD and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, Stanford Medicine, , Stanford University, ; Palo Alto, California USA
                [10 ]GRID grid.1027.4, ISNI 0000 0004 0409 2862, School of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing and Allied Health, , Swinburne University of Technology, ; Hawthorn, Victoria Australia
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1043-6110
                Article
                1252
                10.1186/s13012-022-01252-1
                9746194
                36514059
                c19d2881-128f-46c4-8634-4c01160e69db
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 1 June 2022
                : 19 October 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000925, National Health and Medical Research Council;
                Award ID: APP1194785
                Award ID: APP1153479
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Medicine
                sustainability,determinants,psychometrics,measurement
                Medicine
                sustainability, determinants, psychometrics, measurement

                Comments

                Comment on this article