From: Implementation outcome instruments for use in physical healthcare settings: a systematic review
Reference | Implementation outcome Name of measurement instrument or instrument description | COSMIN | Usability* (number of items) | ConPsy score (/22) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reliability | Validity | Responsiveness | ||||
Acceptability (number of instruments = 33): the perception among implementation stakeholders that a given treatment, service, practice, or innovation is agreeable, palatable or satisfactory. Commonly used terms: satisfaction with various aspects of the innovation (e.g. content, complexity, comfort, delivery and credibility) | ||||||
Shaw et al. [23] | The Mind the Gap Scale—adolescent version | Excellent | Excellent | Not assessed | Good (22) | 7 |
The Mind the Gap Scale—parent version | Excellent | Excellent | Not assessed | Good (27) | 7 | |
Dow et al. [24] | The Person-Centred Health Care for Older Adults (PCHCOA) Survey | Excellent | Excellent | Not assessed | Good (31) | 3 |
Dykes et al. [25] | The Impact of Health Information Technology (I-HIT) Scale | Excellent | Good | Not assessed | Good (29) | 6 |
Brehaut et al. [26] | Ottawa acceptability of decision rules instrument (OADRI) | Excellent | Poor | Not assessed | Good (12) | 3 |
Tomotaki et al. [27] | Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ-J)—Japanese version | Good | Fair | Not assessed | Good (18) | 4 |
Upton et al. [28] | Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ) | Fair | Fair | Not assessed | Good (24) | 7 |
Bhor et Mason [29] | A scale to assess attitudes of healthcare administrators towards the use of e-mail communication between patients and physicians | Fair | Fair | Not assessed | Good (20) | 4 |
Phansalkar et al. [30] | Instrument for assessing clinicians’ perceptions about use of computerised protocols | Fair | Fair | Not assessed | Good (35) | 3 |
Oliveira et al. [31] | CARDIOSATIS-Team scale | Fair | Poor | Not assessed | Good (11) | 6 |
Wu et al. [32] | Healthcare professionals’ intention to use an adverse event reporting system | Fair | Poor | Not assessed | Good (17) | 6 |
Melas et al. [33] | The Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS)—Greek version | Fair | Poor | Not assessed | Good (15) | 5 |
Brouwers et al. [34] | Practitioner Feedback Questionnaire | Fair | Poor | Not assessed | Good (18) | 4 |
Baker et al. [35] | The Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC-45) | Fair | Poor | Not assessed | Good (45) | 4 |
The Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC-35) Scale | Fair | Poor | Not assessed | Good (35) | 4 | |
The Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC-10) Scale—short version | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Good (10) | 2 | |
Vanneste et al. [36] | A survey measuring acceptance of BelRAI, a web-based system enabling person-centred recording and data sharing across care settings | Fair | Poor | Not assessed | Good (31) | 2 |
Bakas et al. [37] | A rating form measuring the satisfaction of the Telephone Assessment and Skill-Building Kit (TASK) intervention | Poor | Excellent | Not assessed | Excellent (9) | 3 |
McConnell et al. [38] | Diffusion of Innovation in Long-Term Care (DOI-LTC) measurement battery-version for certified nursing assistants | Poor | Excellent | Not assessed | Good (40) | 2 |
Diffusion of Innovation in Long-Term Care (DOI-LTC) measurement battery-version for licensed nurses | Poor | Excellent | Not assessed | Adequate (50) | 2 | |
Atkinson [39] | A Questionnaire to Measure Perceived Attributes of eHealth Innovations | Poor | Good | Not assessed | Good (24) | 4 |
Gagnon et al. [40] | A questionnaire based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) | Poor | Fair | Not assessed | Good (33) | 3 |
Ferrando et al. [41] | A questionnaire to measure convenience and satisfaction with a new internet-based tool for oral anticoagulation therapy telecontrol | Poor | Fair | Not assessed | Good (10) | 2 |
Wilkinson et al. [42] | A survey measuring attitudes towards biomedical HIV prevention | Poor | Fair | Not assessed | Good (14) | 2 |
Adu et al. [43] | A questionnaire measuring pharmacists and physician’s attitudes to antibiotic policies | Poor | Poor | Poor | Good (12) | 2 |
Abetz et al. [44] | Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ) | Poor | Poor | Poor | Good (21) | 2 |
Blumenthal et al. [45] | Physiotherapy Mobile Acceptance Questionnaire (PTMAQ) | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Good (30) | 9 |
Weiner et al. [46]** | Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Excellent (4) | 8 |
Unni et al. [47] | A survey measuring satisfaction with electronic health records | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Good (21) | 6 |
Aggelidis et al. [48] | End user computing satisfaction (EUCS) survey | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Good (49) | 6 |
El-Den et al. [49] | Perinatal Depression (PND) Attitudes and Screening Acceptability Questionnaire (PASAQ) | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Good (24) | 5 |
Kramer et al. [50] | A generic questionnaire to detect physicians’ willingness to implement complex medical interventions | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Good (41) | 5 |
Frandes et al. [51] | An instrument assessing mobile technology acceptability in diabetes self-management | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Good (29) | 4 |
Rasoulzadeh et al. [52] | A questionnaire measuring acceptance of creating a nurses’ health monitoring system | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Good (12) | 3 |
Sockolow et al. [53] | Electronic Health Record Nurse Satisfaction (EHRNS) survey | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Good (21) | 3 |
Johnston et al. [54] | A questionnaire assessing physicians’ attitudes towards the computerisation of clinical practice | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Good (20) | 2 |
Bernhardsson et al. [55] | Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) Questionnaire—Swedish version | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Good (31) | 2 |
Yildiz et al. [56] | Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS-50)—Turkish version | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Adequate (50) | 0 |
Bevier et al. [57] | Questionnaire of three scoring items for current treatment satisfaction and factors of both clinical trial participation motivations and technology acceptance model | Poor | Not assessed | Not assessed | Good (34) | 0 |
Wolf et al. [58] | Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) | Not assessed | Excellent | Not assessed | Good (15) | 5 |
Steed et al. [59] | Acceptability of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices (ACGMD) questionnaire | Not assessed | Fair | Not assessed | Adequate (64) | 2 |
Appropriateness (number of instruments = 7): the perceived fit, relevance or compatibility of the innovation or evidence-based practice for a given practice setting, provider or consumer and/or perceived fit of the innovation to address a particular issue or problem. Commonly used terms: perceived fit, relevance, compatibility, suitability, usefulness, and practicability | ||||||
Diego et al. [60] | A questionnaire to measure the attitude of anesthesiologists and residents regarding the use of the checklist in the perioperative period | Fair | Good | Not assessed | Excellent (7) | 2 |
Park et al. [61] | A questionnaire measuring motivational factors for using wearable healthcare devices | Fair | Fair | Not assessed | Good (28) | 8 |
Razmak et al. [62] | A techno-humanist model for e-health adoption of innovative technology | Fair | Fair | Not assessed | Good (32) | 1 |
Joice et al. [63] | Perceived usefulness of a stroke workbook-based intervention measure | Poor | Fair | Not assessed | Good (15) | 6 |
Xiao et al. [64] | Baylor EHR UX survey | Poor | Fair | Not assessed | Good (29) | 3 |
Weiner et al. [46]** | Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Excellent (4) | 8 |
King et al. [65] | The Portal Survey on Satisfaction and Impact on Care | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Good (38) | 5 |
Adoption (number of instruments = 4): the intention, initial decision or action to try or employ an innovation or evidence-based practice. Commonly used terms: uptake, utilisation, initial implementation and intention to try | ||||||
Nydegger et al. [66] | Strength of Implementation Intentions Scale (SIIS) for condom use | Fair | Fair | Not assessed | Good (22) | 4 |
Everson et al. [67] | American Hospital Association IT (AHA-IT) Supplement Survey | Fair | Poor | Not assessed | Good (28) | 6 |
Malo et al. [68] | A questionnaire evaluating nurses’ intention to use an electronic medical charting system | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Good (46) | 3 |
Kaltenbrunner et al. [69] | Lean in Healthcare Questionnaire (LiHcQ) | Unable to score*** | Fair | Not assessed | Good (16) | 7 |
Feasibility (number of instruments = 4): the extent to which a new treatment or an innovation can be successfully used or carried out within a given agency or setting. Commonly used terms: actual fit or utility, suitability for everyday use and practicability | ||||||
Garcia-Smith et al. [70] | Instrument to test the Clinical Information Systems Success Model (CISSM) | Excellent | Poor | Not assessed | Good (26) | 2 |
Schnall et al. [71] | Technology Acceptance Survey | Fair | Poor | Not assessed | Excellent (8) | 3 |
Windsor et al. (2013) | The Smoking Cessation and Reduction in Pregnancy Treatment (SCRIPT) Adoption Scale | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Good (28) | 4 |
Weiner et al. [46]** | Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Excellent (4) | 8 |
Penetration (number of instruments = 4): the integration of a practice within a service setting and its subsystems. Commonly used terms: level of institutionalisation, spread and service access | ||||||
Grooten et al. [72] | The Scaling Integrated Care in Context (SCIROCCO) tool | Good | Good | Not assessed | Good (12) | 5 |
Slaghuis et al. [73] | A measurement instrument for spread of quality improvement in healthcare | Fair | Poor | Not assessed | Good (18) | 4 |
Flanagan et al. [74] | The Prevention and Control of Antimicrobial resistance (PACAR) scale | Poor | Fair | Not assessed | Good (16) | 6 |
Jaana et al. [75] | A measure of clinical information technology sophistication in hospitals | Poor | Not assessed | Not assessed | Adequate (68) | 3 |
Sustainability (number of instruments = 3): the extent to which a newly implemented treatment is maintained or institutionalised within a service setting’s ongoing, stable operations. Commonly used terms: maintenance, continuation, durability, incorporation, integration, institutionalisation, sustained use and routinisation | ||||||
Finch et al. [76] | Normalisation Measure Development Questionnaire (NoMAD) | Fair | Fair | Not assessed | Good (23) | 7 |
Elf et al. [77] | Normalisation Measure Development Questionnaire (S-NoMAD)—Swedish version | Fair | Poor | Not assessed | Good (20) | 7 |
Slaghuis et al. [78] | A measurement instrument for sustainability of work practices in long-term care—short version | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Good (30) | 7 |
A measurement instrument for sustainability of work practices in long-term care—long version | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Good (40) | 6 | |
Barab et al. [79] | The Levels of Institutionalization (LoIn) scales | Poor | Poor | Not assessed | Good (30) | 4 |