Measures of movement and mobility used in clinical practice and research: a scoping review protocol

Moulton, E. J.; Wilson, Rosemary; Edge, Dana; VanDenKerkhof, Elizabeth G.; Deluzio, Kevin J.; Ross‐White, Amanda

doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2017-003800

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The objectives, inclusion criteria, and methods for this scoping review were specified in advance and documented in an a priori protocol 29 . This review follows JBI methodology and the PRISMA extension to scoping reviews 30,31 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measures of movement and mobility used in clinical practice and research: a scoping review

Moulton

Wilson

Silva

et al. 2020

JBI Evidence Synthesis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The concepts of movement and mobility are distinct concepts that are often conflated, and the differences are important to patient care. Movement is a change in the place or position of a part of the body or of the whole body. Mobility is derived from movement and is defined as the ability to move with ease. Researchers and clinicians, including nurses, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists who work with adults and in rehabilitation, need to be confident that they are measuring the outcome of interest.Inclusion criteria: This scoping review considered studies that included participants who are adults, aged 19 and older, with any level of ability or disability. The concepts of interest were tools that measured movement or mobility relative to the human body. Studies were considered regardless of country of origin, health care setting, or sociocultural setting.Methods: CINAHL, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched in June 2018 and OpenGrey, Dissertation Abstracts International, and Google Scholar were searched in November 2018. The searches were limited to articles in English, and the date range was from the inception of the database to the current date. Data were extracted from the studies using a custom data extraction tool. Once tools were identified for analysis, they were coded using the table format developed by Cieza and colleagues.Results: There were 702 unique tools identified, with 651 of them available to be coded for the ICF. There were 385 ICF codes used when coding the tools. From these codes, the percentage of codes of the defining attributes of movement and mobility that were covered could be calculated, as well as the percentage of tool items that were linked to the antecedents, consequences, or defining attributes of movement or mobility.Conclusions: Although there are many tools that measure only movement or mobility, there are many that measure a mixture of the defining attributes as well as the antecedents and consequences. The tool name alone should not be considered a guarantee of the concept measured, and tool selection should be done with a critical eye. This study provides a starting point from which clinicians and researchers can find tools that measure the concepts of movement and mobility of interest and importance to their patient population.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measures of movement and mobility used in clinical practice and research: a scoping review

Moulton

Wilson

Silva

et al. 2020

JBI Evidence Synthesis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Eligible articles were identi ed using a two phase process: a published method of the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review framework [26]. In the rst phase, two reviewers (SR and CS) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of retrieved publications and selected relevant articles for possible inclusion in the review.…”

Section: Article Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the rst phase, two reviewers (SR and CS) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of retrieved publications and selected relevant articles for possible inclusion in the review. Disagreements between the two reviewers were discussed, and, if agreement could not be reached, the article was retained for further review by AB [11,26].…”

Section: Article Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the second phase, the full texts of the remaining articles were independently reviewed by the same two reviewers using a checklist to determine eligibility criteria. Disagreements between the two assessors were discussed, and a third author was consulted if agreement could not be reached [26]. Reviewers were not masked to author or journal name [11].…”

Section: Article Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A scoping review of registry captured indicators for evaluating quality of critical care in ICU.

Jawad¹,

Rashan²,

Sigera³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Excess morbidity and mortality following critical illness is increasingly attributed to potentially avoidable complications occurring as a result of complex ICU management [1–3]. Routine measurement of quality indicators through an EHR or registries are increasingly used to benchmark care and evaluate improvement interventions. However, existing Indicators of quality for intensive care are derived almost exclusively from relatively narrow subsets of ICU patients from high-income healthcare systems. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically review the literature on quality indicators (QIs) for evaluating critical care, identify QIs, map their definitions, evidence base, and describe the variances in measurement, and the reported challenges of implementation.Method We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane libraries from the earliest available date through to January 2019. To increase sensitivity of the search, grey literature and reference lists were reviewed. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of one or more QIs designed to evaluate care for patients in ICU captured through a registry platform- or Electronic Health Record (EHR) adapted for quality of care surveillance.Results The search identified 4780 citations. Review of abstracts led to retrieval of 276 full-text articles, of which 123 articles were accepted. 51 unique QIs in ICU were classified using the three components of health care quality proposed by the High Quality Health Systems (HQSS) framework. Adverse events including hospital acquired infections (13.7%) hospital processes (54.9%) and outcomes (31.4%) were the most common QIs identified. Patient reported outcome QIs accounted for less than 6%. Barriers to the implementation of QIs were described in 35.7% of articles and divided into operational barriers (51%) and acceptability barriers (49%).Conclusions Despite the complexity and risk associated with ICU care, there are only a small number of operational indicators used. Future selection of QIs would benefit from a stakeholder driven approach, whereby the values of patients and communities and the priorities for actionable improvement as perceived by healthcare providers are prioritised and include greater focus on measuring discriminable processes of care.

show abstract

A scoping review of registry captured indicators for evaluating quality of critical care in ICU

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Excess morbidity and mortality following critical illness is increasingly attributed to potentially avoidable complications occurring as a result of complex ICU management (Berenholtz et al., J Crit Care 17:1-2, 2002; De Vos et al., J Crit Care 22:267-74, 2007; Zimmerman J Crit Care 1:12-5, 2002). Routine measurement of quality indicators (QIs) through an Electronic Health Record (EHR) or registries are increasingly used to benchmark care and evaluate improvement interventions. However, existing indicators of quality for intensive care are derived almost exclusively from relatively narrow subsets of ICU patients from high-income healthcare systems. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically review the literature on QIs for evaluating critical care, identify QIs, map their definitions, evidence base, and describe the variances in measurement, and both the reported advantages and challenges of implementation. Method We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane libraries from the earliest available date through to January 2019. To increase the sensitivity of the search, grey literature and reference lists were reviewed. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of one or more QIs designed to evaluate care for patients in ICU captured through a registry platform or EHR adapted for quality of care surveillance. Results The search identified 4780 citations. Review of abstracts led to retrieval of 276 full-text articles, of which 123 articles were accepted. Fifty-one unique QIs in ICU were classified using the three components of health care quality proposed by the High Quality Health Systems (HQSS) framework. Adverse events including hospital acquired infections (13.7%), hospital processes (54.9%), and outcomes (31.4%) were the most common QIs identified. Patient reported outcome QIs accounted for less than 6%. Barriers to the implementation of QIs were described in 35.7% of articles and divided into operational barriers (51%) and acceptability barriers (49%). Conclusions Despite the complexity and risk associated with ICU care, there are only a small number of operational indicators used. Future selection of QIs would benefit from a stakeholder-driven approach, whereby the values of patients and communities and the priorities for actionable improvement as perceived by healthcare providers are prioritized and include greater focus on measuring discriminable processes of care.

show abstract

Measures of movement and mobility used in clinical practice and research: a scoping review protocol

Cited by 4 publications

References 18 publications

Measures of movement and mobility used in clinical practice and research: a scoping review

Measures of movement and mobility used in clinical practice and research: a scoping review

A scoping review of registry captured indicators for evaluating quality of critical care in ICU.

A scoping review of registry captured indicators for evaluating quality of critical care in ICU

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About