A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Diagnostic Accuracy and Measurement Properties of Instruments Screening for Psychological Distress in Healthcare Workers-A Systematic Review. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • Instruments that measure psychological distress in healthcare workers (HCWs) were evaluated for their diagnostic accuracy in a review of studies from 2000 to February 2021.
  • Seventeen studies analyzing eight different instruments were included, revealing low methodological quality, particularly regarding how tests were conducted and who was selected for the studies.
  • Some instruments, like the Burnout-Thriving Index and the Physician Well-Being Index, showed decent criterion validity, yet the overall findings suggest that screening HCWs for psychological distress with these tools may not be reliable due to insufficient studies and quality concerns.

Article Abstract

Background: Instruments with sufficient diagnostic accuracy are better able to detect healthcare workers (HCWs) who are at risk of psychological distress. The objective of this review is to examine the diagnostic accuracy and measurement properties of psychological distress instruments in HCWs.

Methods: We searched in Embase, Medline and PsycINFO from 2000 to February 2021. We included studies if they reported on the diagnostic accuracy of an instrument. To assess the methodological quality of the studies with regard to diagnostic accuracy, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies and, for the measurement properties, the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN).

Results: Seventeen studies reporting on eight instruments were included. Overall, the methodological quality assessing the diagnostic accuracy and measurement properties was low, specifically for items addressing the domain 'index test'. The items addressing 'reference standard', 'time and flow' and 'patient selection' were mostly unclear. The criterion validity of the single-item burnout, the Burnout-Thriving Index, and the Physician Well-Being Index (PWBI) was sufficient, with area under the curve ranging from 0.75 to 0.92 and sensitivity 71-84%, respectively.

Conclusion: Our findings indicate that it is questionable whether screening for HCWs at risk of psychological distress can be performed sufficiently with the included instruments due to the low numbers of studies per instrument and the low methodological quality.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10298301PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20126114DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

diagnostic accuracy
28
measurement properties
16
psychological distress
16
accuracy measurement
12
methodological quality
12
hcws risk
8
risk psychological
8
items addressing
8
diagnostic
7
instruments
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!