基于COSMIN指南对糖尿病患者健康素养评估工具的系统评价

doi:10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2023.21.016

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的系统评价糖尿病患者健康素养评估工具的方法学质量和测量属性质量，为医护人员选择最佳评估工具提供依据。方法系统检索PubMed、Embase、CINAHL、Web of Science、中国知网、维普数据库、万方数据库及中国生物医学文献数据库中有关糖尿病患者健康素养评估工具的研究，检索时限为建库至2022年12月31日。由2名研究者独立进行文献筛选和资料提取，采用基于共识的健康测量工具遴选标准（consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments，COSMIN）系统评价指南对纳入的评估工具进行评价，形成最终推荐意见。结果共纳入15项研究，包含12种糖尿病患者健康素养评估工具。其中，韩国糖尿病健康素养量表（Korean Health Literacy Scale for Diabetes Mellitus，KHLS-DM）和15条目糖尿病计算测试量表（Diabetes Numeracy Test-15，DNT-15）具有满意的内容效度和内部一致性，为A级推荐；3条目健康素养筛查问卷（Health Literacy Screening Questions-3，HLSQ-3）具有高质量证据证明其内部一致性“不充分”，为C级推荐；其余9种量表因有中级及以上的证据证明其内容效度或内部一致性为不确定或不充分，推荐等级均为B级。结论 KHLS-DM可综合评估患者书面素养、计算能力和评判性素养，各测量学特性得到较为全面的评价，且信效度较好，优先推荐应用；DNT-15仅侧重评估患者的计算能力，可与其他量表互补结合使用。

关键词: 糖尿病, 健康素养, 评估工具, 测量属性, COSMIN指南, 系统评价

Abstract:

Objective To evaluate the methodological quality and measurement characteristics of health literacy assessment tools for diabetic patients and to provide references for medical staff to select the best assessment tools. Methods The PubMed，Embase，CINAHL，Web of Science，CNKI，VIP database，Wanfang Data，and Chinese Biomedical Database were searched from inception to December 31，2022. Data were screened and extracted independently by 2 researchers. The consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments （COSMIN） system evaluation guidelines were spontaneously used to evaluate the included assessment tools. Finally，recommendations were made. Results A total of 15 studies were included，involving 12 health literacy assessment tools for diabetic patients. Among them，KHLS-DM and DNT-15 have satisfactory content validity and internal consistency and are recommended as Grade A. HLSQ-3 has high-quality evidence to suggest that its internal consistency is "inadequate" and recommended as Grade C，while the other 9 scales are recommended as Grade B for content validity or internal consistency of uncertain/inadequate evidence at or above the intermediate level. Conclusion KHLS-DM can evaluate written literacy，numeracy，and critical literacy of patients，and each measurement characteristic has been comprehensively evaluated with high reliability and validity，so it is recommended to be applied first. DNT-15 focuses on evaluating the numeracy of patients，which can be used in combination with other scales to evaluate health literacy of patients more comprehensively.

Key words: Diabetes Mellitus, Health Literacy, Assessment Instruments, Measurement Characteristic, COSMIN Guideline, Systematic Review

刘素香, 边莉, 张叶群, 齐苗苗. 基于COSMIN指南对糖尿病患者健康素养评估工具的系统评价[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2023, 58(21): 2670-2676.

LIU Suxiang, BIAN Li, ZHANG Yequn, QI Miaomiao. A systematic review of health literacy assessment tools for diabetic patients based on COSMIN guidelines[J]. Chinese Journal of Nursing, 2023, 58(21): 2670-2676.

图/表 3

表1 纳入文献的基本特征（n=15）

Table 1 Basic characteristics of the included studies（n=15）

表2 纳入量表的方法学质量和测量属性质量评价（n=17，方法学质量/测量属性质量）

Table 2 Psychometric properties and methodological quality evaluation of the included scales （n=17，methodological quality/measurement characteristics quality）

表3 纳入量表测量学特性合成结果及推荐意见（n=12）

Table 3 Synthesis of the psychometric properties of the included scales and the formation of recommendations（n=12）

参考文献 33

[1]	International Diabetes Foundation. IDF diabetes atlas-10th edi-tion[EB/OL].(2021-12-06)[2023-05-05]. https://diabetesatlas.org/atlas/tenth-edition/.
[2]	姜晓雯. 老年2型糖尿病患者健康素养与服药依从性关系:服药信念的中介作用[D]. 济南: 山东大学, 2021.
	Jiang XW. Relationship between health literacy and medication compliance in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus:the mediating role of medication belief[D]. Jinan: Shandong University, 2021.
[3]	Souza JG, Apolinario D, Magaldi RM, et al. Functional health literacy and glycaemic control in older adults with type 2 dia-betes:a cross-sectional study[J]. BMJ Open, 2014, 4(2):e004180. DOI URL
[4]	Lee EH, Lee YW, Moon SH. A structural equation model link-ing health literacy to self-efficacy,self-care activities,and heal-th-related quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes[J]. Asian Nurs Res(Korean Soc Nurs Sci), 2016, 10(1):82-87.
[5]	Pleasant A, McKinney J, Rikard RV. Health literacy measure-ment:a proposed research agenda[J]. J Health Commun, 2011, 16(Suppl 3):11-21.
[6]	Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures[J]. Qual Life Res, 2018, 27(5):1147-1157. DOI PMID
[7]	Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures[J]. Qual Life Res, 2018, 27(5):1171-1179. DOI PMID
[8]	Alhazzani W, Guyatt G. An overview of the GRADE approach and a peek at the future[J]. Med J Aust, 2018, 209(7):291-292. PMID
[9]	朱冬梅. 2型糖尿病健康素养量表的编制及应用研究[D]. 镇江: 江苏大学, 2021.
	Zhu DM. Development and application of Health Literacy Scale for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus[D]. Zhenjiang: Jiangsu University, 2021.
[10]	Lee EH, Lee YW, Lee KW, et al. A new comprehensive dia-betes Health Literacy Scale:development and psychometric evaluation[J]. Int J Nurs Stud, 2018, 88:1-8. DOI URL
[11]	Leung AY, Lou VW, Cheung MK, et al. Development and vali-dation of Chinese Health Literacy Scale for Diabetes[J]. J Clin Nurs, 2013, 22(15/16):2090-2099. DOI URL
[12]	Ahmadi A, Niknami S, Ghaffari M. Type 2 diabetes health li-teracy assessment tool:translation and psychometric evaluation of the Iranian version[J]. Int J Endocrinol Metab, 2022, 20(2):e116983.
[13]	Kang SJ, Sim KH, Song BR, et al. Validation of the Health Literacy Scale for Diabetes as a criterion-referenced test with standard setting procedures[J]. Patient Educ Couns, 2018, 101(8):1468-1476. DOI PMID
[14]	Eyübolu E, Schulz PJ. Validation of Turkish health literacy measures[J]. Health Promot Int, 2016, 31(2):355-362. DOI PMID
[15]	Ishikawa H, Takeuchi T, Yano E. Measuring functional,com-municative,and critical health literacy among diabetic patients[J]. Diabetes Care, 2008, 31(5):874-879. DOI PMID
[16]	赵晓燕, 李彦儒, 曾咏梅, 等. 糖尿病健康素养量表的汉化和信效度评价[J]. 中华护理教育, 2021, 18(3):266-269.
	Zhao XY, Li YR, Zeng YM, et al. Evaluation of the reliability and validity of Health Literacy Scale-Chinese[J]. Chin J Nurs Educ, 2021, 18(3):266-269.
[17]	McNaughton CD, Cavanaugh KL, Kripalani S, et al. Validation of a short,3-Item version of the Subjective Numeracy Scale[J]. Med Decis Making, 2015, 35(8):932-936. DOI PMID
[18]	Luo HB, Patil SP, Wu Q, et al. Validation of a combined health literacy and numeracy instrument for patients with type 2 diabetes[J]. Patient Educ Couns, 2018, 101(10):1846-1851. DOI PMID
[19]	Huizinga MM, Elasy TA, Wallston KA, et al. Development and validation of the Diabetes Numeracy Test(DNT)[J]. BMC Health Serv Res, 2008, 8:96. DOI URL
[20]	Alghodaier H, Jradi H, Mohammad NS, et al. Validation of a Diabetes Numeracy Test in Arabic[J]. PLoS One, 2017, 12(5):e0175442. DOI URL
[21]	Moradi Y, Baradaran HR, Khamseh ME. Psychometric proper-ties of the Iranian version of the Diabetes Numeracy Test-15[J]. Int J Prev Med, 2016, 7:43. DOI URL
[22]	White RO 3rd, Osborn CY, Gebretsadik T, et al. Development and validation of a Spanish diabetes-specific numeracy mea-sure:DNT-15 Latino[J]. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2011, 13(9):893-898. DOI URL
[23]	Al Sayah F, Majumdar SR, Egede LE, et al. Measurement pro-perties and comparative performance of health literacy scree-ning questions in a predominantly low income African American population with diabetes[J]. Patient Educ Couns, 2014, 97(1):88-95. DOI URL
[24]	彭健, 沈蓝君, 陈祎婷, 等. COSMIN-RoB清单简介及测量工具内部结构研究的偏倚风险清单解读[J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2020, 20(10):1234-1240.
	Peng J, Shen LJ, Chen YT, et al. An overview of the COSMIN-RoB checklist and the interpretation of it in evaluating the risk of bias of studies on internal structure[J]. Chin J Evid Based Med, 2020, 20(10):1234-1240.
[25]	支婷婷, 王艳波. 认知性访谈在创伤知情照护相关态度量表文化调适中的应用[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2022, 57(3):343-347. DOI
	Zhi TT, Wang YB. Application of cognitive interview in cultu-ral adjustment of Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care Scale[J]. Chin J Nurs, 2022, 57(3):343-347.
[26]	王浩云, 高云, 叶君荣, 等. 认知性访谈在精神科护士工作场所暴力管理能力量表构建中的应用[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2023, 58(17):2126-2133. DOI
	Wang HY, Gao Y, Ye JR, et al. Application of cognitive inter-view in the construction of Workplace Violence Management Ability Scale for Psychiatric Nurses[J]. Chin J Nurs, 2023, 58(17):2126-2133.
[27]	Moreira RS, Bassolli L, Coutinho E, et al. Reproducibility and reliability of the Quality of Life Questionnaire in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation[J]. Arq Bras Cardiol, 2016, 106(3):171-181. DOI PMID
[28]	Lee EH, Kim CJ, Lee J, et al. Self-administered health literacy instruments for people with diabetes:systematic review of measurement properties[J]. J Adv Nurs, 2017, 73(9):2035-2048. DOI URL
[29]	陈欢, 侯朝铭, 高静, 等. 中文版高血压患者服药依从性量表测量学特性的系统评价[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2023, 58(2):171-178. DOI
	Chen H, Hou CM, Gao J, et al. Chinese version of the Medication Adherence Scale for Patients with Hypertension:a systematic review of psychometric properties[J]. Chin J Nurs, 2023, 58(2):171-178.
[30]	罗欢, 侯朝铭, 高静, 等. 中文版2型糖尿病患者自我管理评估工具测量属性的系统评价[J]. 中华护理教育, 2023, 20(3):349-355.
	Luo H, Hou CM, Gao J, et al. Chinese version of the self-management assessment tools for patients with type 2 diabe-tes:a systematic review[J]. Chin J Nurs Educ, 2023, 20(3):349-355.
[31]	De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, et al. Measurement in medicine:a practical guide[J]. Meas Med A Pract Guide, 2011:1-338.
[32]	陈艺蕾, 张晟, 柴菽彬, 等. 糖尿病中医疗效评价PRO量表的反应度研究[J]. 中华中医药杂志, 2020, 35(4):2031-2033.
	Chen YL, Zhang S, Chai SB, et al. Responsiveness of diabetes PRO scale of the evaluation for the efficacy of TCM[J]. China J Tradit Chin Med Pharm, 2020, 35(4):2031-2033.
[33]	AADE. AADE7 self-care behaviors[J]. Diabetes Educ, 2008, 34(3):445-449. DOI URL