IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0177321.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing medical professionalism: A systematic review of instruments and their measurement properties

Author

Listed:
  • Honghe Li
  • Ning Ding
  • Yuanyuan Zhang
  • Yang Liu
  • Deliang Wen

Abstract

Background: Over the last three decades, various instruments were developed and employed to assess medical professionalism, but their measurement properties have yet to be fully evaluated. This study aimed to systematically evaluate these instruments’ measurement properties and the methodological quality of their related studies within a universally acceptable standardized framework and then provide corresponding recommendations. Methods: A systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO was conducted to collect studies published from 1990–2015. After screening titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility, the articles included in this study were classified according to their respective instrument’s usage. A two-phase assessment was conducted: 1) methodological quality was assessed by following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist; and 2) the quality of measurement properties was assessed according to Terwee’s criteria. Results were integrated using best-evidence synthesis to look for recommendable instruments. Results: After screening 2,959 records, 74 instruments from 80 existing studies were included. The overall methodological quality of these studies was unsatisfactory, with reasons including but not limited to unknown missing data, inadequate sample sizes, and vague hypotheses. Content validity, cross-cultural validity, and criterion validity were either unreported or negative ratings in most studies. Based on best-evidence synthesis, three instruments were recommended: Hisar’s instrument for nursing students, Nurse Practitioners’ Roles and Competencies Scale, and Perceived Faculty Competency Inventory. Conclusion: Although instruments measuring medical professionalism are diverse, only a limited number of studies were methodologically sound. Future studies should give priority to systematically improving the performance of existing instruments and to longitudinal studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Honghe Li & Ning Ding & Yuanyuan Zhang & Yang Liu & Deliang Wen, 2017. "Assessing medical professionalism: A systematic review of instruments and their measurement properties," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-28, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0177321
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177321
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177321
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177321&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0177321?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0177321. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.