烧伤患者身体意象特异性评估工具的系统评价

doi:10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2025.04.014

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的系统评价烧伤患者身体意象特异性评估工具的测量学特性，旨在为选择适宜的评估工具提供借鉴。方法计算机检索中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、维普数据库、中国生物医学文献服务系统、PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、PsycINFO和CINAHL。检索评价烧伤患者身体意象特异性评估工具测量学特性的研究，检索时限为建库至2024年4月15日。2名研究者独立对检索的文献进行筛选、查找全文、提取信息。同时对此类评估工具测量学特性在基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准（consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instrument，COSMIN）指南指导下进行方法学质量和测量学特性的系统评价，并对质量等级进行评估，形成推荐意见。结果共纳入6项研究，包括3个烧伤患者身体意象特异性评估工具，即巴西版身体意象生活质量量表（the Body Image Quality of Life Inventory into Brazilian Portuguese，BIQLI-BP）、外观满意度量表（Satisfaction with Appearance Scale，SWAP）、德里福德外观评估量表59（the Derriford Appearance Scale 59，DAS59）。在患者报告的结局测量工具开发方面，BIQLI-BP、SWAP和DAS59的总体质量均为“模糊”。在内容效度方面，BIQLI-BP、SWAP和DAS59的方法学质量均评价为“模糊”。在结构效度方面，SWAP和DAS59的方法学质量分别评价为“良好”和“很好”，BIQLI-BP的方法学质量为“不良”。在内部一致性方面，BIQLI-BP、SWAP和DAS59的方法学质量均为“很好”。在稳定性方面，BIQLI-BP和DAS59为“未报告”，SWAP的方法学质量评价为“模糊”。在效标效度方面，BIQLI-BP和DAS59为“未报告”，SWAP的方法学质量评价为“不良”。在测量误差方面，BIQLI-BP和DAS59为“未报告”，SWAP的方法学质量评价为“模糊”。在假设检验方面，除DAS59为“未报告”外，BIQLI-BP方法学质量为“很好”，SWAP评价为“模糊”。结论现存烧伤患者身体意象特异性评估工具中，SWAP具有良好的测量学特性，暂时可被推荐。国内烧伤患者身体意象特异性评估工具研究数量相对不足，未来应开展更多本土化研究。

关键词: 烧伤, 身体意象特异性评估工具, 量表, 信度, 效度, 系统评价

Abstract:

Objective The measurement characteristics of body image specificity evaluation tools for burn patients were systematically evaluated，aims to provide reference for selecting appropriate assessment tools. Methods CNKI， Wanfang data knowledge service platform，VIP database，China Biomedical Literature Service system，PubMed，Embase，Web of Science，PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched by computer to collect and evaluate the measurement characteristics of burn patients’ body image specificity evaluation tools from the establishment of the database to April 15，2024. There were 2 researchers who independently reviewed the collected literature，looked for the full text and extracted information. At the same time，the methodological quality and measurement performance of such assessment tools were systematically evaluated under the guidance of consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instrument（COSMIN） guidelines. Finally，the quality and strength were rated to form a recommendation. Results A total of 6 studies were included，including 3 evaluation tools for body image specificity of burn patients，namely the Body Image Quality of Life Inventory into Brazilian Portuguese（BIQLI-BP），Satisfaction with Appearance Scale（SWAP），and the Derriford Appearance Scale 59（DAS59）. In the development of PROMs，the overall quality of BIQLI-BP，SWAP and DAS59 is “doubtful”. In terms of content validity，the methodological quality of BIQLI-BP，SWAP and DAS59 was evaluated as “doubtful”. In terms of construct validity，the methodological quality of SWAP and DAS59 was evaluated as “good” and “very good” respectively，while the methodological quality of BIQLI-BP was “inadequate”. In terms of internal consistency，the methodological quality of BIQLI-BP，SWAP and DAS59 was “very good”. In terms of stability，the BIQLI-BP and DAS59 were “unreported”，and the methodological quality evaluation of the SWAP was “doubtful”. In terms of criterion validity，the BIQLI-BP and DAS59 scales were “unreported”，and the methodological quality evaluation of the SWAP scale was “inadequate”. In terms of measurement errors，the BIQLI-BP and DAS59 scales were “unreported”，and the methodological quality evaluation of the SWAP scale was “doubtful”. In the aspect of hypothesis test，except that the DAS59 scale is “unreported”，the methodological quality of BIQLI-BP scale is “very good” and the evaluation of SWAP scale is “doubtful”. Conclusion Among the existing body image specificity evaluation tools for burn patients，the SWAP has good measurement performance and it can be recommended for the time being. The number of specific evaluation tools for body image of burn patients in China is relatively insufficient，and more localization studies should be carried out in the future.

Key words: Burn, Body Image Specificity Assessment Tool, Scale, Reliability, Vali-dity, Systematic Review

刘宁, 李婧菱, 左顺利, 朱秀媛, 方亦萍, 丘丽红. 烧伤患者身体意象特异性评估工具的系统评价[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2025, 60(4): 478-485.

LIU Ning, LI Jingling, ZUO Shunli, ZHU Xiuyuan, FANG Yiping, QIU Lihong. Systematic review of a body image assessment tool for burn patients[J]. Chinese Journal of Nursing, 2025, 60(4): 478-485.

图/表 5

表1 PubMed的检索策略

Table 1 Searching strategy of PubMed

图1 文献筛选流程图

Figure 1 Flow chart of literature retrieval

表2 纳入文献的一般特征（n=6）

Table 2 General characteristics of included literature（n=6）

表3 纳入评估工具的方法学质量评价结果（n=6）

Table 3 Methodological quality evaluation results of the assessment tools（n=6）

表4 纳入评估工具的测量学特性评价结果及推荐意见

Table 4 Synthesis of the psychometric properties of the assessment tools and the formation of recommendations

参考文献 27

[1]	Yakupu A, Zhang J, Dong W, et al. The epidemiological cha-racteristic and trends of burns globally[J]. BMC Public Health, 2022, 22(1):1596.
[2]	Chen L, He X, Xian J, et al. Development of a framework for managing severe burns through a 17-year retrospective analysis of burn epidemiology and outcomes[J]. Sci Rep, 2021, 11(1):9374. DOI PMID
[3]	Deeter L, Seaton M, Carrougher GJ, et al. Hospital-acquired com-plications alter quality of life in adult burn survivors:report from a burn model system[J]. Burns, 2019, 45(1):42-47.
[4]	Chaudhary FA, Ahmad B, Sinor MZ. The severity of facial burns,dental caries,periodontal disease,and oral hygiene im-pact oral health-related quality of life of burns victims in Pakistan:a cross-sectional study[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2021, 21(1):570. DOI PMID
[5]	Farzan R, Hossein-Nezhadi M, Toloei M, et al. Investigation of anxiety and depression predictors in burn patients hospitalized at Velayat Hospital,a newly established burn center[J]. J Burn Care Res, 2023, 44(3):723-730.
[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]	Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, et al. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments[J]. Qual Life Res, 2009, 18(8):1115-1123. DOI PMID
[8]	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
[9]	Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, et al. COSMIN methodo-logy for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported out-come measures:a Delphi study[J]. Qual Life Res, 2018, 27(5):1159-1170. DOI PMID
[10]	Assunção FF, Dantas RA, Ciol MA, et al. Reliability and vali-dity of the body image quality of life inventory:version for Brazi-lian burn victims[J]. Res Nurs Health, 2013, 36(3):299-310.
[11]	Lawrence JW, Heinberg LJ, Roca R, et al. Development and validation of the Satisfaction with Appearance Scale:assessing body image among burn-injured patients[J]. Psychol Assess, 1998,10:64-70.
[12]	Dahl O, Wickman M, Wengström Y. The cultural adaptation and validation of a Swedish version of the Satisfaction with Ap-pearance Scale(SWAP-Swe)[J]. Burns, 2014, 40(4):598-605.
[13]	Caltran MP, Freitas NO, Dantas RA, et al. Satisfaction with Appearance Scale-SWAP:adaptation and validation for Brazi-lian burn victims[J]. Burns, 2016, 42(6):1331-1339. DOI PMID
[14]	Karahan S, Demir S, Tuncbilek Z, et al. The cultural adapta-tion and validation of a Turkish version of the Satisfaction with Appearance Scale(SWAP-TR)[J]. Burns, 2023, 49(4):914-923.
[15]	Sadeghi-Bazargani H, Zare Z, Ranjbar F. Factor structure of the Persian version of general,social,and negative self-cons-ciousness of appearance domains of Derriford Appearance Scale 59:an application in the field of burn injuries[J]. Neu-ropsychiatr Dis Treat, 2017,13:147-154.
[16]	王旋, 温贤秀, 苟莉, 等. 心脏康复依从性评估工具测量学属性的系统评价[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2024, 59(6):736-743. DOI URL
	Wang X, Wen XX, Gou L, et al. The cardiac rehabilitation adherence assessment tools:a systematic review of psycho-metric properties[J]. Chin J Nurs, 2024, 59(6):736-743.
[17]	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.
[18]	Melkamu Asaye M, Gelaye KA, Matebe YH, et al. Assessment of content validity for a Neonatal Near Miss Scale in the context of Ethiopia[J]. Glob Health Action, 2021, 14(1):1983121.
[19]	施月仙, 张海明, 黄亚琪, 等. 选择健康测量工具的共识标准(COSMIN)偏倚风险评价清单的解读[J]. 中国护理管理, 2021, 21(7):1053-1057.
	Shi YX, Zhang HM, Huang YQ, et al. Interpretation of COSMIN risk of bias checklist[J]. Chin Nurs Manag, 2021, 21(7):1053-1057.
[20]	彭健, 沈蓝君, 陈祎婷, 等. 对COSMIN-RoB清单中测量工具稳定性、测量误差和效标效度研究偏倚风险的清单解读[J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2020, 20(11):1340-1344.
	Peng J, Shen LJ, Chen YT, et al. Interpretation of COSMIN risk of bias checklist in evaluating risk of bias of studies on reliability,measurement error and criteria validity of patient-reported outcome measures[J]. Chin J Evid Based Med, 2020, 20 (11):1340-1344.
[21]	陈丽霞, 施慧, 朱德政, 等. 成人低血糖恐惧评估工具的质量评价[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2024, 59(9):1072-1079.
	Chen LX, Shi H, Zhu DZ, et al. Quality appraisal of hypogly-cemia fear assessment tools for adults[J]. Chin J Nurs, 2024, 59(9):1072-1079.
[22]	沈蓝君, 彭健, 陈祎婷, 等. COSMIN方法介绍:评价患者报告结局测量工具内容效度的评分系统[J]. 循证护理, 2021, 7(5):609-614.
	Shen LJ, Peng J, Chen YT, et al. COSMIN methodology intro-duction:rating system for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures[J]. Chin Evid Based Nurs, 2021, 7(5):609-614.
[23]	Corry N, Pruzinsky T, Rumsey N. Quality of life and psycho-social adjustment to burn injury:social functioning,body image,and health policy perspectives[J]. Int Rev Psychiatry, 2009, 21(6):539-548.
[24]	Thombs BD, Notes LD, Lawrence JW, et al. From survival to socialization:a longitudinal study of body image in survivors of severe burn injury[J]. J Psychosom Res, 2008, 64(2):205-212. DOI PMID
[25]	李婷, 周琴, 李娜, 等. 小面积烧伤患者身体意象与自我价值感的关系[J]. 解放军护理杂志, 2014, 31(16):17-20.
	Li T, Zhou Q, Li N, et al. Research on the relationship between body image and the feeling of self-value of patients with small area burns[J]. Nurs J Chin PLA, 2014, 31(16):17-20.
[26]	陈丽丽, 冯新霞. 基于结构方程模型的烧伤患儿亲社会行为现状及影响因素分析[J]. 中国卫生统计, 2022, 39(3):409-412.
	Chen LL, Feng XX. Analysis of the current status of pro-social behaviours of children with burns and the factors influencing them based on structural equation modelling[J]. Chin J Health Stat, 2022, 39(3):409-412.
[27]	冯琦凡, 涂发妹, 吴季敏, 等. 烧伤患者身体意象体验质性研究的Meta整合[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2024, 59(3):362-370. DOI URL
	Feng QF, Tu FM, Wu JM, et al. The experience of body image experience in burn patients:a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies[J]. Chin J Nurs, 2024, 59(3):362-370.