A systematic review of Self-Care of Heart Failure Index based on COSMIN guideline
10.3760/cma.j.cn115682-20220720-03524
- VernacularTitle:基于COSMIN操作指南的心力衰竭患者自我护理指数的系统评价
- Author:
Wanhui LI
1
;
Yule HU
;
Yingying CHEN
;
Xiaofeng KANG
Author Information
1. 中国医学科学院北京协和医学院护理学院，北京 100144
- Keywords:
Heart failure;
Self-Care of Heart Failure Index;
European Heart Failure Self-Care Behaviour Scale;
Psychometrics;
COSMIN
- From:
Chinese Journal of Modern Nursing
2023;29(8):1028-1033
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To evaluate the measurement attribute of Self-Care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) and the methodological quality of corresponding research, so as to provide evidence basis for clinical selection and use.Methods:We searched Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and WanFang Data from the establishment of the database to March 27, 2022. The measurement attributes of the scale and the methodological quality of the research were evaluated based on the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline, and the final recommendation for the scale was formed by combining the evaluation results.Results:A total of 14 studies were included. SCHFI v.7.2 was a Grade A recommendation, and there was high-level evidence to support the hypothesis test of "sufficient" internal consistency and structural validity, and the middle-level evidence to support its "sufficient" content validity, structural validity and retest reliability. SCHFI v.6.2 was a Grade B recommendation, and there was high-level evidence to support the hypothesis test of "sufficient" structural validity, and the medium-level evidence to support its "sufficient" content validity, but the results of structural validity, internal consistency and retest reliability were inconsistent.Conclusions:From the existing evidence, SCHFI v.7.2 is an ideal evaluation tool for self-care of patients with heart failure. The number of relevant studies is insufficient, and the test of measurement error, calibration validity and responsiveness is lacking, which needs to be supported by high-quality evidence.
