OBJECTIVES: The INTERMED Self-Assessment questionnaire (IMSA) was developed as an alternative to the observer-rated INTERMED (IM) to assess biopsychosocial complexity and health care needs. We studied feasibility, reliability and validity of the IMSA within a large and heterogeneous international sample of adult hospital in- and outpatients, and its predictive value for health care utilization (HCU) and quality of life (QoL).METHODS: 850 participants aged 17 to 90 from 5 countries completed the IMSA and were evaluated with the IM. The following measurement properties were determined: feasibility by percentages of missing values; reliability by Cronbach's alpha; interrater agreement by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs); convergent validity of IMSA scores with mental health (SF-36 emotional well-being subscale and HADS), medical health (CIRS) and QoL (EQ-5D) by Spearmans rank correlations; predictive validity of IMSA scores with HCU and QoL by (generalized) linear mixed models.RESULTS: Feasibility, face validity and reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.80) were satisfactory. ICC between IMSA and IM total scores was .78 (95% CI .75-.81). Correlations of the IMSA with the SF-36, HADS, CIRS and EQ-5D (convergent validity) were -.65, .15, .28 and -.59, respectively. The IMSA significantly predicted QoL and also HCU (emergency room visits, hospitalization, outpatient visits, and diagnostic exams) after 3 and 6 months follow-up. Results were comparable between hospital sites, in- and outpatients, and age groups.CONCLUSION: The IMSA is a generic and time-efficient method to assess biopsychosocial complexity and to provide guidance for multidisciplinary care trajectories in adult patients, with good reliability and validity across different cultures.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to study measurement properties of the DutchLanguage Version of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS-DLV) in blue and white collarworkers employed at multiple companies and to compare the validity and factorstructure to other language versions.Methods: Workers (n = 1023) were assessed during a cross-sectional health surveillance.Construct validity was tested with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses(EFA and CFA) and hypothesis testing. Reliability was tested with Cronbach 's alpha.Results: A two-factor structure of the BRS-DLV had good model fit in both EFAand CFA, which could be explained by difficulties of workers with reversed orderitems. After excluding these inconsistent answering patterns, a one-factor structureshowed good model fit resembling the original BRS (χ2 = 16.5; CFI & TLI = 0.99;SRMR = 0.02;RMSEA = 0.04). Internal consitency is sufficient (Cronbach 'sα = 0.78). All five hypotheses were confirmed, suggesting construct validity.Conclusions: Reliability of the BRS-DLV is sufficient and there is evidence of constructvalidity. Inconsistent answering, however, caused problems in interpretationand factor structure of the BRS-DLV. This can be easily detected and handled becauseitem 2, 4 and 6 are in reversed order. Other language versions differ in factorstructure, most likely because systematic errors are not corrected for. To collect validdata, it is advised to be aware of inconsistent answering of respondents.CC BY-NC
MULTIFILE
Background: Regular inspection of the oral cavity is required for prevention, early diagnosis and risk reduction of oral- and general health-related problems. Assessments to inspect the oral cavity have been designed for non-dental healthcare professionals, like nurses. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the content and the measurement properties of oral health assessments for use by non-dental healthcare professionals in assessing older peoples’ oral health, in order to provide recommendations for practice, policy, and research. Methods: A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE.com, and Cinahl (via Ebsco) has been performed. Search terms referring to ‘oral health assessments’, ‘non-dental healthcare professionals’ and ‘older people (60+)’ were used. Two reviewers individually performed title/abstract, and full-text screening for eligibility. The included studies have investigated at least one measurement property (validity/reliability) and were evaluated on their methodological quality using “The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments” (COSMIN) checklist. The measurement properties were then scored using quality criteria (positive/negative/indeterminate). Results: Out of 879 hits, 18 studies were included in this review. Five studies showed good methodological quality on at least one measurement property and 14 studies showed poor methodological quality on some of their measurement properties. None of the studies assessed all measurement properties of the COSMIN. In total eight oral health assessments were found: the Revised Oral Assessment Guide (ROAG); the Minimum Data Set (MDS), with oral health component; the Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT); The Holistic Reliable Oral Assessment Tool (THROAT); Dental Hygiene Registration (DHR); Mucosal Plaque Score (MPS); The Brief Oral Health Screening Examination (BOHSE) and the Oral Assessment Sheet (OAS). Most frequently assessed items were: lips, mucosa membrane, tongue, gums, teeth, denture, saliva, and oral hygiene. Conclusion: Taken into account the scarce evidence of the proposed assessments, the OHAT and ROAG are most complete in their included oral health items and are of best methodological quality in combination with positive quality criteria on their measurement properties. Non-dental healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers should be aware of the methodological limitations of the available oral health assessments and realize that the quality of the measurement properties remains uncertain.
