RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Accurate measurement of health status is essential to assess veterans' needs and the effects of interventions directed at improving veterans' well-being. We conducted a systematic review to identify instruments that measure subjective health status, considering four components (ie, physical, mental, social or spiritual well-being). METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, we searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, JSTOR, ERIC, Social Sciences Abstracts and ProQuest in June 2021 for studies reporting on the development or evaluation of instruments measuring subjective health among outpatient populations. We assessed risk of bias with the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments tool and engaged three veteran partners to independently assess the clarity and applicability of identified instruments. RESULTS: Of 5863 abstracts screened, we identified 45 eligible articles that reported health-related instruments in the following categories: general health (n=19), mental health (n=7), physical health (n=8), social health (n=3) and spiritual health (n=8). We found evidence for adequate internal consistency for 39 instruments (87%) and good test-retest reliability for 24 (53%) instruments. Of these, our veteran partners identified five instruments for the measurement of subjective health (Military to Civilian Questionnaire (M2C-Q), Veterans RAND 36-Item Health Survey (VR-36), Short Form 36, Abbreviated World Health Organization Quality of Life questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF) and Sleep Health Scale) as clear and very applicable to veterans. Of the two instruments developed and validated among veterans, the 16-item M2C-Q considered most components of health (mental, social and spiritual). Of the three instruments not validated among veterans, only the 26-item WHOQOL-BREF considered all four components of health. CONCLUSION: We identified 45 health measurement instruments of which, among those reporting adequate psychometric properties and endorsed by our veteran partners, 2 instruments showed the most promise for measurement of subjective health. The M2C-Q, which requires augmentation to capture physical health (eg, the physical component score of the VR-36), and the WHOQOL-BREF, which requires validation among veterans.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Integrated care models have been adopted for individuals with chronic conditions and for persons with rare diseases, such as haemophilia. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the evidence from reviews for the effects of integrated multidisciplinary care for chronic conditions in adults and to provide an example of using this evidence to make recommendations for haemophilia care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews up to January 2016, and reviewed reference lists of retrieved papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Systematic reviews of at least one randomized study, on adults with non-communicable chronic conditions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two investigators independently assessed eligibility and extracted data. Quality of reviews was assessed using ROBIS, and the evidence assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: We included seven reviews reporting on three chronic conditions. We found low to high quality evidence. Integrated care results in a reduction in mortality; likely a reduction in emergency visits and an improvement in function; little to no difference in quality of life, but shorter hospital stays; and may result in little to no difference in missed days of school or work. No studies reported educational attainment, or patient adherence and knowledge. When used for haemophilia, judgment about the indirectness of the evidence was driven by disease, intervention or outcome characteristics. CONCLUSION: This overview provides the most up to date evidence on integrated multidisciplinary care for chronic conditions in adults, and an example of how it can be used for guidelines in rare diseases.
