In recent years, biomedical optics technology has developed rapidly. The current widespread use of biomedical optics was made possible by the invention of optical instruments. The advantages of being non-invasive, portable, effective, low cost, and less susceptible to system noise have led to the rapid development of functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) technology for hemodynamics detection, especially in the field of functional brain imaging. At the same time, laboratories and companies have developed various fNIRS-based systems. The safety, stability, and efficacy of fNIRS systems are key performance indicators. However, there is still a lack of comprehensive and systematic evaluation methods for fNIRS instruments. This study uses the fNIRS system developed in our laboratory as the test object. The test method established in this study includes system validation and performance testing to comprehensively assess fNIRS systems' reliability. These methods feature low cost and high practicality. Based on this study, existing or newly developed systems can be comprehensively and easily evaluated in the laboratory or workspace.

Objectives: To establish whether items included in instruments published in the last decade assessing risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are indeed addressing risk of bias.Study Design and Setting: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus from 2010 to October 2021 for instruments assessing risk of bias of RCTs. By extracting items and summarizing their essential content, we generated an item list. Items that two re-viewers agreed clearly did not address risk of bias were excluded. We included the remaining items in a survey in which 13 experts judged the issue each item is addressing: risk of bias, applicability, random error, reporting quality, or none of the above.Results: Seventeen eligible instruments included 127 unique items. After excluding 61 items deemed as clearly not addressing risk of bias, the item classification survey included 66 items, of which the majority of respondents deemed 20 items (30.3%) as addressing risk of bias; the majority deemed 11 (16.7%) as not addressing risk of bias; and there proved substantial disagreement for 35 (53.0%) items. Conclusion: Existing risk of bias instruments frequently include items that do not address risk of bias. For many items, experts disagree on whether or not they are addressing risk of bias.(c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background: We were engaged by policy stakeholders to undertake a scoping review of cannabis measurement instruments to inform the evaluation of cannabis legalization impacts. We identified instruments employed in population-based or clinical research to screen and assess cannabis use, including measurement properties. We also identified the content domains included in each instrument and gaps in the measurement of key priority areas as established by policy stakeholders. Methods: We followed PRISMA and conducted searches on MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, HAPI, Scopus and grey literature. We included publications from the past 15 years that reported the use of an instrument to measure cannabis use. Six study team members calibrated screening and data abstraction, independently identified records and abstracted data. Results: Across 915 included publications, we identified 187 unique instruments covering seven content domains and 35 subdomains. The most identified instruments were the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, the Timeline Follow-Back and the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (109/915; 91/915; 64/915). The Canadian Cannabis Survey addressed the most subdomains (22/35). Frequency of use, prevalence of use, and mental health impacts were the most addressed subdomains (110/187; 94/187; 67/187) and storage, growing cannabis, and second-hand exposure were the least addressed (1/187; 4/187; 6/187). Conclusion: This research identified instruments and domains critical to the assessment of public health impacts of cannabis legalization, which can facilitate the harmonization of measures to inform policy development. Future research should develop new instruments for less commonly-addressed constructs and thoroughly explore psychometric properties of existing instruments.

Introduction: Several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for cancer pain have been published; however, the quality of these guidelines has not been evaluated so far. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of CPGs for cancer pain and identify gaps limiting knowledge. Methods: We systematically searched seven databases and 12 websites from their inception to July 20, 2021, to include CPGs related to cancer pain. We used the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE II) and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist to assess the methodology and reporting quality of eligible CPGs. The overall agreement among reviewers with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated. The development methods of CPGs, strength of recommendations, and levels of evidence were determined. Results: Eighteen CPGs published from 1996 to 2021 were included. The overall consistency of the reviewers in each domain was acceptable (ICC from 0.76 to 0.95). According to the AGREE II assessment, only four CPGs were determined to be recommended without modifications. For reporting quality, the average reporting rates for all seven domains of CPGs was 57.46%, with the highest domain in domain 3 (evidence, 68.89%) and the lowest domain in domain 5 (review and quality assurance, 33.3%). Conclusion: The methodological quality of cancer pain CPGs fluctuated widely, and the complete reporting rate in some areas is very low. Researchers need to make greater efforts to provide high-quality guidelines in this field to clinical decision-making.

Background: Neurogenic bladder (NGB) is a chronic and disabling condition with a high prevalence rate, which can cause economic burden on patients and their families and reduce the quality of life of patients. Researchers have carried out a large number of clinical trials on the effectiveness and safety of different interventions for the treatment of NGB. The published clinical trials of NGB generally suffered from inconsistent and irregular reporting of outcome indicators. To facilitate future research studies of NGB, a core outcome set (COS) is required, which helps translate the results into high-quality evidence. Methods and analysis: This mixed-method project has four phases instrument: in phase 1, a scoping review of the literature to identify outcomes that have been reported in clinical trials and systematic reviews of clinical trials of interventions for NCB; in phase 2, a qualitative component using interviews to obtain the views of NGB patients, families, and their caregivers; in phase 3, Delphi survey among stakeholders to prioritize the core outcomes; and in phase 4, a face-to-face consensus meeting to discuss and agree on the final NBG COS. Conclusions: We will develop a COS that should be reported in future clinical trials of NGB.

BACKGROUND: Extended reality, which encompasses virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR), is increasingly used in medical education. Studies assessing the effectiveness of these new educational modalities should measure relevant outcomes using outcome measurement tools with validity evidence. OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to determine the choice of outcomes, measurement instruments, and the use of measurement instruments with validity evidence in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of VR, AR, and MR in medical student education. METHODS: We conducted a systematic mapping review. We searched 7 major bibliographic databases from January 1990 to April 2020, and 2 reviewers screened the citations and extracted data independently from the included studies. We report our findings in line with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. RESULTS: Of the 126 retrieved RCTs, 115 (91.3%) were on VR and 11 (8.7%) were on AR. No RCT on MR in medical student education was found. Of the 115 studies on VR, 64 (55.6%) were on VR simulators, 30 (26.1%) on screen-based VR, 9 (7.8%) on VR patient simulations, and 12 (10.4%) on VR serious games. Most studies reported only a single outcome and immediate postintervention assessment data. Skills outcome was the most common outcome reported in studies on VR simulators (97%), VR patient simulations (100%), and AR (73%). Knowledge was the most common outcome reported in studies on screen-based VR (80%) and VR serious games (58%). Less common outcomes included participants' attitudes, satisfaction, cognitive or mental load, learning efficacy, engagement or self-efficacy beliefs, emotional state, competency developed, and patient outcomes. At least one form of validity evidence was found in approximately half of the studies on VR simulators (55%), VR patient simulations (56%), VR serious games (58%), and AR (55%) and in a quarter of the studies on screen-based VR (27%). Most studies used assessment methods that were implemented in a nondigital format, such as paper-based written exercises or in-person assessments where examiners observed performance (72%). CONCLUSIONS: RCTs on VR and AR in medical education report a restricted range of outcomes, mostly skills and knowledge. The studies largely report immediate postintervention outcome data and use assessment methods that are in a nondigital format. Future RCTs should include a broader set of outcomes, report on the validity evidence of the measurement instruments used, and explore the use of assessments that are implemented digitally.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction or experience with colorectal cancer screening can determine adherence to screening programs. An evaluation of validated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for measuring experience or satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening does not exist. Our objective was to identify and critically appraise validated questionnaires for measuring patient satisfaction or experience with colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. We conducted searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and BiblioPRO and assessed the methodological quality of studies and measurement properties of questionnaires according to the COSMIN guidelines for systematic reviews of PROMs. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019118527. RESULTS: We included 80 studies that used 75 questionnaires, of which only 5 were validated. Four questionnaires measured satisfaction with endoscopy: two in the context of colorectal cancer screening (for colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy) and two for non-screening endoscopy. One questionnaire measured satisfaction with bowel preparation. The methodological quality of studies was variable. The questionnaires with evidence for sufficient content validity and internal consistency were: the CSSQP questionnaire, which measures safety and satisfaction with screening colonoscopy, and the Post-Procedure questionnaire which measures satisfaction with non-screening endoscopic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review shows that a minority of existing PROMs for measuring patient satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening are validated. We identified two questionnaires with high potential for further use (CSSQP and the Post-Procedure questionnaire).

Background: This systematic review aimed to identify and critically assess available instruments for the analysis of national-level physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) policies and provide recommendations for their future use. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of academic and grey literature through six bibliographic databases, Google and the websites of three international organisations for PA promotion to identify instruments that are used or that may be used for national-level PA/SB policy analysis. In order to describe and categorise the identified instruments, we used the Comprehensive Analysis of Policy on Physical Activity framework. This framework specifies the elements of a comprehensive analysis of PA/SB policies through the following categories: purpose, level, policy sector, type of policy, stages of policy cycle and scope of analysis. Results: Out of 22,071 screened items, 26 publications describing 16 instruments met the selection criteria. All the instruments can be used for analysing PA policy, whilst only two include questions about SB policy. None of the instruments allow for the analysis of all the relevant components of national PA/SB policy. Some important elements of PA policy analysis, such as the tourism and research sectors, the agenda-setting and endorsement/legitimisation stages, and the effects of policy, are addressed by only a few instruments. Moreover, none of the instruments address unwritten formal statements, informal policies, and the termination and succession stages of the policy cycle. Conclusion: Designing new instruments or adapting existing ones is needed to allow for a more thorough analysis of national PA and SB policies. Given that policy analysis covering all important components of PA/SB policy may be extremely time-consuming, a way forward might be to develop a set of complementary instruments, with each tool collecting detailed information about a specific component.

BACKGROUND: Numerous articles have sought to identify the impact of educational interventions for improving evidence-based practice (EBP) amongst nurses, most of these focus on skills and knowledge acquired. No systematic review has explored whether this educational input translates into improved patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence on (1) The change in patient outcomes following educational interventions to support practising nurses in implementing EBP. (2) The instruments or methods used to determine whether EBP education improves patient outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review following PRISMA guidance was conducted. Literature was comprehensive searched including 6 databases, journal handsearching, citation tracking, and grey literature websites. Studies were included if they reported an EBP educational intervention aimed at practising nurses and contained objective or self-reported measures of patient related outcomes. The quality of the included studies was assessed using a modified Health Care Practice R&D Unit (HCPRDU) tool. Because of the poor homogeneity of the included studies, the data were analysed by narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Of the 4284 articles identified, 18 were included: 12 pre-post studies, three qualitative studies, and three mixed-methods study designs. The level of quality was modest in the studies. The results of the EBP educational interventions on patient outcomes were assessed using three methods: individual projects to implement an evidence-based approach, qualitative approaches, and a questionnaire survey. The majority of the articles concluded there was a positive change in patient outcomes following an educational intervention to improve EBP; a wide range of context specific outcomes were described. CONCLUSION: Educational interventions for clinical nurses to support the implementation of EBP show promise in improving patient outcomes. However, the direct impact of EBP interventions on clinical outcomes is difficult to measure. Further testing and development is needed to improve the quality of studies and evaluation instruments in order to confirm the current findings.

BACKGROUND: In order to reduce the risk of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) several methods have been developed, accepted by the international literature and used in the workplace. The purpose of this systematic review was to describe recent implementations of wearable sensors for quantitative instrumental-based biomechanical risk assessments in prevention of WMSDs. METHODS: Articles written until 7 May 2018 were selected from PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and Web of Science using specific keywords. RESULTS: Instrumental approaches based on inertial measurement units and sEMG sensors have been used for direct evaluations to classify lifting tasks into low and high risk categories. Wearable sensors have also been used for direct instrumental evaluations in handling of low loads at high frequency activities by using the local myoelectric manifestation of muscle fatigue estimation. In the field of the rating of standard methods, on-body wireless sensors network-based approaches for real-time ergonomic assessment in industrial manufacturing have been proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies foresee the use of wearable technologies for biomechanical risk assessment although the requirement to obtain increasingly quantitative evaluations, the recent miniaturization process and the need to follow a constantly evolving manual handling scenario is prompting their use.

BACKGROUND: The perceived importance of safety culture in improving patient safety and its impact on patient outcomes has led to a growing interest in the assessment of safety climate in healthcare organizations; however, the rigour with which safety climate tools were developed and psychometrically tested was shown to be variable. This paper aims to identify and review questionnaire studies designed to measure safety climate in acute hospital settings, in order to assess the adequacy of reported psychometric properties of identified tools. METHODS: A systematic review of published empirical literature was undertaken to examine sample characteristics and instrument details including safety climate dimensions, origin and theoretical basis, and extent of psychometric evaluation (content validity, criterion validity, construct validity and internal reliability). RESULTS: Five questionnaire tools, designed for general evaluation of safety climate in acute hospital settings, were included. Detailed inspection revealed ambiguity around concepts of safety culture and climate, safety climate dimensions and the methodological rigour associated with the design of these measures. Standard reporting of the psychometric properties of developed questionnaires was variable, although evidence of an improving trend in the quality of the reported psychometric properties of studies was noted. Evidence of the theoretical underpinnings of climate tools was limited, while a lack of clarity in the relationship between safety culture and patient outcome measures still exists. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of the adequacy of the psychometric development of safety climate questionnaire tools is still limited. Research is necessary to resolve the controversies in the definitions and dimensions of safety culture and climate in healthcare and identify related inconsistencies. More importance should be given to the appropriate validation of safety climate questionnaires before extending their usage in healthcare contexts different from those in which they were originally developed. Mixed methods research to understand why psychometric assessment and measurement reporting practices can be inadequate and lacking in a theoretical basis is also necessary.

Objective: to identify scientific evidence about the communication process in Telenursing and analyze them. Method:: integrative review performed in March 2014. The search strategy, structured with the descriptors 'telenursing' and 'communication', was implemented in the databases Medline, Bireme, Cinahl, Scopus, Web of Science, Scielo, and Cochrane. Results:: ten studies were selected after inclusion and exclusion criteria. The main challenges were: the clinical condition of patients, the possibility for inadequate communication to cause misconduct, the absence of visual references in interactions without video, and difficulty understanding nonverbal communication. Conclusion:: distance imposes communicative barriers in all elements: sender, recipient and message; and in both ways of transmission, verbal and nonverbal. The main difficulty is to understand nonverbal communication. To properly behave in this context, nurses must receive specific training to develop abilities and communication skills

BACKGROUND: Nursing assistants are the largest aged care workforce providing care to older people in residential aged care facilities. Although studies have focused on their training and development needs when providing a palliative approach, a valid and reliable instrument to evaluate their knowledge, skills and attitudes is required. AIMS: To examine what instruments have been used to evaluate nursing assistants' knowledge of, skills in and attitudes towards a palliative approach in residential aged care facilities, critically evaluate development processes, and discuss the strengths and limitations of existing instruments for this population. METHODS: CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, ERIC, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched using key words. Selected articles were published in English in the period 2004-2014 and included instruments which evaluated nursing assistants and a palliative approach. RESULTS: Ten studies using seven instruments met the inclusion criteria. One of these instruments measured nursing assistants' level of comfort in providing end-of-life care. The six remaining instruments measured palliative care knowledge, palliative care practice, self-efficacy, knowledge and attitudes towards people with advanced dementia, beliefs and attitudes to death, dying, palliative and interdisciplinary care across the aged care workforce. CONCLUSION: Seven instruments have been used to evaluate nursing assistants' knowledge, skills and attitudes in a palliative approach. Instrument design and recommended psychometric processes for development limit specificity and usefulness of these instruments for nursing assistants' scope of practice. Adhering to recommended psychometric processes will increase the validity and reliability of an instrument tailored to this population and a palliative approach

Aim: To identify, appraise and describe the characteristics of instruments for measuring evidence-based knowledge, skills and/or attitudes in nursing practice. Background: Evidence-based practice has been proposed for optimal patient care for more than three decades, yet competence in evidence-based practice knowledge and skills among nurse clinicians remains difficult to measure. There is a need to identify well-validated and reliable instruments for assessing competence for evidence-based practice in nursing. Design: Psychometric systematic review. Data sources: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, CDSR, All EBM reviews and PsycInfo databases were searched from 1960-April 2013; with no language restrictions applied. Review methods: Using pre-determined inclusion criteria, three reviewers independently identified studies for full-text review, extracting data and grading instrument validity using a Psychometric Grading Framework. Results: Of 91 studies identified for full-text review, 59 met the inclusion criteria representing 24 different instruments. The Psychometric Grading Framework determined that only two instruments had adequate validity - the Evidence Based Practice Questionnaire measuring knowledge, skills and attitudes and another un-named instrument measuring only EBP knowledge and attitudes. Instruments used in another nine studies were graded as having 'weak' validity and instruments in the remaining 24 studies were graded as 'very weak'. Conclusion: The Evidence Based Practice Questionnaire was assessed as having the highest validity and was the most practical instrument to use. However, the Evidence Based Practice Questionnaire relies totally on self-report rather than direct measurement of competence suggesting a need for a performance-based instrument for measuring evidence-based knowledge, skills and attitudes in nursing.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is one of the most common long-term conditions worldwide, which places considerable pressure on patients, communities and health systems. The major international clinical guidelines now recommend the inclusion of self management programmes in the routine management of patients with asthma. These programmes have been associated with improved outcomes in patients with asthma. However, the implementation of self management programmes in clinical practice, and their uptake by patients, is still poor. Recent developments in mobile technology, such as smartphone and tablet computer apps, could help develop a platform for the delivery of self management interventions that are highly customisable, low-cost and easily accessible. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and feasibility of using smartphone and tablet apps to facilitate the self management of individuals with asthma.Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register (CAGR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Health Library, Compendex/Inspec/Referex, IEEEXplore, ACM Digital Library, CiteSeerx and CAB abstracts via Web of Knowledge. We also searched registers of current and ongoing trials and the grey literature. We checked the reference lists of all primary studies and review articles for additional references. We searched for studies published from 2000 onwards. The latest search was run in June 2013.Selection criteria: We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared self management interventions for patients with clinician-diagnosed asthma delivered via smartphone apps to self management interventions delivered via traditional methods (e.g. paper-based asthma diaries). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Our primary outcomes were symptom scores; frequency of healthcare visits due to asthma exacerbations or complications and health-related quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs with a total of 408 participants. We found no cluster RCTs, controlled before and after studies or interrupted time series studies that met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Both RCTs evaluated the effect of a mobile phone-based asthma self management intervention on asthma control by comparing it to traditional, paper-based asthma self management. One study allowed participants to keep daily entries of their asthma symptoms, asthma medication usage, peak flow readings and peak flow variability on their mobile phone, from which their level of asthma control was calculated remotely and displayed together with the corresponding asthma self management recommendations. In the other study, participants recorded the same readings twice daily, and they received immediate self management feedback in the form of a three-colour traffic light display on their phones. Participants falling into the amber zone of their action plan twice, or into the red zone once, received a phone call from an asthma nurse who enquired about the reasons for their uncontrolled asthma. We did not conduct a meta-analysis of the data extracted due to the considerable degree of heterogeneity between these studies. Instead we adopted a narrative synthesis approach. Overall, the results were inconclusive and we judged the evidence to have a GRADE rating of low quality because further evidence is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. In addition, there was not enough information in one of the included studies to assess the risk of bias for the majority of the domains. Although the other included study was methodologically rigorous, it was not possible to blind participants or personnel in the study. Moreover, there are concerns in both studies in relation to attrition bias and other sources of bias. One study showed that the use of a smartphone app for the delivery of an asthma self management programme had no statistically significant effect on asthma symptom scores (mean difference (MD) 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.23 to 0.25), asthma-related quality of life (MD of mean scores 0.02, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.39), unscheduled visits to the emergency department (OR 7.20, 95% CI 0.37 to 140.76) or frequency of hospital admissions (odds ratio (OR) 3.07, 95% CI 0.32 to 29.83). The other included study found that the use of a smartphone app resulted in higher asthma-related quality of life scores at six-month follow-up (MD 5.50, 95% CI 1.48 to 9.52 for the physical component score of the SF-12 questionnaire; MD 6.00, 95% CI 2.51 to 9.49 for the mental component score of the SF-12 questionnaire), improved lung function (PEFR) at four (MD 27.80, 95% CI 4.51 to 51.09), five (MD 31.40, 95% CI 8.51 to 54.29) and six months (MD 39.20, 95% CI 16.58 to 61.82), and reduced visits to the emergency department due to asthma-related complications (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.99). Both studies failed to find any statistical differences in terms of adherence to the intervention and occurrence of other asthma-related complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence base is not sufficient to advise clinical practitioners, policy-makers and the general public with regards to the use of smartphone and tablet computer apps for the delivery of asthma self management programmes. In order to understand the efficacy of apps as standalone interventions, future research should attempt to minimise the differential clinical management of patients between control and intervention groups. Those studies evaluating apps as part of complex, multicomponent interventions, should attempt to tease out the relative contribution of each intervention component. Consideration of the theoretical constructs used to inform the development of the intervention would help to achieve this goal. Finally, researchers should also take into account: the role of ancillary components in moderating the observed effects, the seasonal nature of asthma and long-term adherence to self management practices.