RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Existing implementation measures developed in high-income countries may have limited appropriateness for use within low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). In response, researchers at Johns Hopkins University began developing the Mental Health Implementation Science Tools (mhIST) in 2013 to assess priority implementation determinants and outcomes across four key stakeholder groups-consumers, providers, organization leaders, and policy makers-with dedicated versions of scales for each group. These were field tested and refined in several contexts, and criterion validity was established in Ukraine. The Consumer and Provider mhIST have since grown in popularity in mental health research, outpacing psychometric evaluation. Our objective was to establish the cross-context psychometric properties of these versions and inform future revisions. METHODS: We compiled secondary data from seven studies across six LMIC-Colombia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Thailand, Ukraine, and Zambia-to evaluate the psychometric performance of the Consumer and Provider mhIST. We used exploratory factor analysis to identify dimensionality, factor structure, and item loadings for each scale within each stakeholder version. We also used alignment analysis (i.e., multi-group confirmatory factor analysis) to estimate measurement invariance and differential item functioning of the Consumer scales across the six countries. RESULTS: All but one scale within the Provider and Consumer versions had Cronbach's alpha greater than 0.8. Exploratory factor analysis indicated most scales were multidimensional, with factors generally aligning with a priori subscales for the Provider version; the Consumer version has no predefined subscales. Alignment analysis of the Consumer mhIST indicated a range of measurement invariance for scales across settings (R2 0.46 to 0.77). Several items were identified for potential revision due to participant nonresponse or low or cross- factor loadings. We found only one item, which asked consumers whether their intervention provider was available when needed, to have differential item functioning in both intercept and loading. CONCLUSION: We provide evidence that the Consumer and Provider versions of the mhIST are internally valid and reliable across diverse contexts and stakeholder groups for mental health research in LMIC. We recommend the instrument be revised based on these analyses and future research examine instrument utility by linking measurement to other outcomes of interest.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Multiple pharmacological agents have been studied in literature with antispasmodic effect during colonoscopy. Peppermint oil, with its relaxing effect on colon has demonstrated varying results. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to evaluate its role during colonoscopy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Literature search of the following databases was undertaken: PubMed\Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Outcomes that were evaluated included incidence of any spasticity, severe spasticity, and peristalsis during examination. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) was evaluated as a quality outcome metric. Risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD) and mean difference (MD) were calculated using the DerSimonian-Laird method and random effects where applicable. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, six studies (with one abstract) were included in this review. Peppermint oil resulted in overall lower incidence for spasticity (RD: -0.39, P=0.02), severe spasticity (RD: -0.15, P=0.04), and peristalsis (-0.27, P≤0.001) during colonoscopy examination. An improved ADR (RR: 1.31, P=0.01) was also noted, however only two studies evaluated this effect. CONCLUSIONS: Peppermint oil resulted in relaxation of colon during colonoscopy with decrease incidence of spasticity, severe spasticity, peristalsis and improved ADR. These results are encouraging however results are limited due to significant heterogeneity found in the outcomes. Larger studies with standardized dosing are needed to evaluate this effect. Furthermore, studies evaluating additional colonoscopy outcomes such as polyp detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, and serrated adenoma detection rate are needed.