Assessment tools measuring health-related empowerment in psychosocially vulnerable populations: a systematic review.
Empowerment
Psychometric properties
Systematic review
Tools
Vulnerable populations
Journal
International journal for equity in health
ISSN: 1475-9276
Titre abrégé: Int J Equity Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101147692
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 11 2021
17 11 2021
Historique:
received:
28
06
2021
accepted:
22
10
2021
entrez:
18
11
2021
pubmed:
19
11
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Many programs are undertaken to facilitate the empowerment of vulnerable populations across the world. However, an overview of appropriate empowerment measurements to evaluate such initiatives remains incomplete to date. This systematic review aims to describe and summarise psychometric properties, feasibility and clinical utility of the available tools for measuring empowerment in psychosocially vulnerable populations. A systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was completed. A descriptive approach was used for data analysis. Papers were eligible if they explored the development, validation, cross-cultural translation or the utility of an empowerment measurement tool in the context of psychosocially vulnerable populations. Twenty-six included articles described twenty-six separate studies in which 16 empowerment measurement tools were developed, validated/translated, or used. There was heterogeneity in empowerment constructs, samples targeted, and psychometric properties measured. The measurement of reliability of the included instruments was satisfactory in most cases. However, the validity, responsiveness, interpretability, feasibility and clinical utility of the identified measurement tools were often not adequately described or measured. This systematic review provides a useful snapshot of the strengths as well as limitations of existing health related empowerment measurement tools used with psychosocially vulnerable populations in terms of their measurement properties, and constructs captured. It highlights significant gaps in empowerment tool measurement, development and evaluation processes. In particular, the results suggest that in addition to systematic assessments of psychometric properties, the inclusion of feasibility and clinical utility as outcome measures are important to assess relevance to clinical practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Many programs are undertaken to facilitate the empowerment of vulnerable populations across the world. However, an overview of appropriate empowerment measurements to evaluate such initiatives remains incomplete to date. This systematic review aims to describe and summarise psychometric properties, feasibility and clinical utility of the available tools for measuring empowerment in psychosocially vulnerable populations.
METHODS
A systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was completed. A descriptive approach was used for data analysis. Papers were eligible if they explored the development, validation, cross-cultural translation or the utility of an empowerment measurement tool in the context of psychosocially vulnerable populations.
RESULTS
Twenty-six included articles described twenty-six separate studies in which 16 empowerment measurement tools were developed, validated/translated, or used. There was heterogeneity in empowerment constructs, samples targeted, and psychometric properties measured. The measurement of reliability of the included instruments was satisfactory in most cases. However, the validity, responsiveness, interpretability, feasibility and clinical utility of the identified measurement tools were often not adequately described or measured.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review provides a useful snapshot of the strengths as well as limitations of existing health related empowerment measurement tools used with psychosocially vulnerable populations in terms of their measurement properties, and constructs captured. It highlights significant gaps in empowerment tool measurement, development and evaluation processes. In particular, the results suggest that in addition to systematic assessments of psychometric properties, the inclusion of feasibility and clinical utility as outcome measures are important to assess relevance to clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34789249
doi: 10.1186/s12939-021-01585-1
pii: 10.1186/s12939-021-01585-1
pmc: PMC8596931
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
246Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Eval Program Plann. 2017 Oct;64:85-89
pubmed: 28551274
Health Promot Int. 2016 Dec;31(4):809-826
pubmed: 26137970
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Nov 8;17(Suppl 2):336
pubmed: 29143624
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2010 Sep;44(9):791-9
pubmed: 20815665
BMC Public Health. 2013 Mar 16;13:234
pubmed: 23496972
J Community Health. 2019 Dec;44(6):1204-1213
pubmed: 31317439
East Mediterr Health J. 2016 Mar 15;21(12):897-905
pubmed: 26996363
Clin Diabetes. 2017 Dec;35(5):281-285
pubmed: 29263570
Nord J Psychiatry. 2012 Dec;66(6):380-8
pubmed: 22339394
Psychiatr Serv. 2006 Oct;57(10):1493-6
pubmed: 17035571
Scand J Caring Sci. 2005 Mar;19(1):32-8
pubmed: 15737163
Qual Life Res. 2002 May;11(3):193-205
pubmed: 12074258
J Adv Nurs. 2011 Jan;67(1):204-14
pubmed: 20969618
Ethn Dis. 2005 Autumn;15(4):671-8
pubmed: 16259492
Eur J Pain. 2020 Jan;24(1):134-144
pubmed: 31408556
Diabetes Educ. 2002 May-Jun;28(3):435-43
pubmed: 12073958
Soc Sci Med. 2006 Sep;63(6):1517-30
pubmed: 16697508
Res Theory Nurs Pract. 2009;23(2):107-32
pubmed: 19558027
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2013 Apr;26(2):186-92
pubmed: 23385323
PLoS One. 2015 May 13;10(5):e0126553
pubmed: 25970618
Aust J Prim Health. 2019 Nov;25(5):395-401
pubmed: 31586502
J Affect Disord. 2018 Dec 1;241:59-62
pubmed: 30096593
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Nov 8;17(Suppl 2):335
pubmed: 29143668
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 Dec 19;19(1):509
pubmed: 31856755
Lepr Rev. 2012 Jun;83(2):129-53
pubmed: 22997690
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Jul;233:138-157
pubmed: 31200269
Health Promot Pract. 2006 Jul;7(3):312-23
pubmed: 16760238
Psychiatr Serv. 2008 Nov;59(11):1338-42
pubmed: 18971413
Rural Remote Health. 2019 Apr;19(2):4708
pubmed: 30987426
Am J Community Psychol. 1995 Oct;23(5):581-99
pubmed: 8851341
J Smok Cessat. 2021 Jan 13;2021:6610500
pubmed: 34306223
Mayo Clin Proc. 2007 Oct;82(10):1244-54
pubmed: 17908530
Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2007 Dec;61(6):594-601
pubmed: 18081618
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Apr;84(4 Suppl 2):S29-34
pubmed: 12692769
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34-42
pubmed: 17161752
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Jul 08;13:263
pubmed: 23835131
BMC Geriatr. 2017 Nov 2;17(1):257
pubmed: 29096611
Arthritis Res Ther. 2018 Oct 30;20(1):244
pubmed: 30376871
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016 Apr;40 Suppl 1:S115-21
pubmed: 26337824
BMC Infect Dis. 2016 Jun 10;16:272
pubmed: 27287712
Front Public Health. 2018 Jun 11;6:149
pubmed: 29942800
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n160
pubmed: 33781993
BMC Psychol. 2015 Aug 21;3:29
pubmed: 26293685
Age Ageing. 2019 Nov 1;48(6):832-837
pubmed: 31579907
Health Educ Behav. 2013 Oct;40(5):581-91
pubmed: 23174629
J Appl Gerontol. 2021 Jul;40(7):693-702
pubmed: 31920136