Europe PMC

This website requires cookies, and the limited processing of your personal data in order to function. By using the site you are agreeing to this as outlined in our privacy notice and cookie policy.

Abstract 


Introduction

Self-efficacy is associated with management of diseases, psychological well-being, improved quality of life and rehabilitation adherence. Several instruments related to behaviour or specific disease (eg, coronary artery disease (CAD)) assess self-efficacy. The evaluation of cardiac self-efficacy in individuals with CAD will support healthcare professionals to improve self-efficacy via interventions; therefore, a suitable instrument is crucial. This systematic review aims to assess measurement properties, methodological quality and content of outcome measures of cardiac self-efficacy instruments for individuals with CAD.

Methods and analysis

The study has been developed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol and Consensus Norms for Selection of Health Measuring Instruments (COSMIN). The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Studies assessing measurement properties of cardiac self-efficacy instruments for individuals with CAD will be included. No date or language restrictions will be applied to the search. Two independent authors will be responsible for assessing the eligibility of studies. Methodological quality of studies will be assessed using the COSMIN RoB Checklist, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Assessment will be used to assess the quality of each study. Two authors will independently evaluate the content of instruments and link this to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.

Ethics and dissemination

This study does not require ethics committee approval since it is based on previously published data. Evidence from this systematic review will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at scientific conferences.

Prospero registration number

CRD42021262613.

Free full text 


Logo of bmjoLink to Publisher's site
BMJ Open. 2022; 12(7): e062794.
Published online 2022 Jul 26. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062794
PMCID: PMC9330326
PMID: 35882460
Protocol

Self-efficacy instruments for individuals with coronary artery disease: a systematic review protocol

Abstract

Introduction

Self-efficacy is associated with management of diseases, psychological well-being, improved quality of life and rehabilitation adherence. Several instruments related to behaviour or specific disease (eg, coronary artery disease (CAD)) assess self-efficacy. The evaluation of cardiac self-efficacy in individuals with CAD will support healthcare professionals to improve self-efficacy via interventions; therefore, a suitable instrument is crucial. This systematic review aims to assess measurement properties, methodological quality and content of outcome measures of cardiac self-efficacy instruments for individuals with CAD.

Methods and analysis

The study has been developed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol and Consensus Norms for Selection of Health Measuring Instruments (COSMIN). The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Studies assessing measurement properties of cardiac self-efficacy instruments for individuals with CAD will be included. No date or language restrictions will be applied to the search. Two independent authors will be responsible for assessing the eligibility of studies. Methodological quality of studies will be assessed using the COSMIN RoB Checklist, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Assessment will be used to assess the quality of each study. Two authors will independently evaluate the content of instruments and link this to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.

Ethics and dissemination

This study does not require ethics committee approval since it is based on previously published data. Evidence from this systematic review will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at scientific conferences.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42021262613.

Keywords: CARDIOLOGY, Coronary heart disease, Ischaemic heart disease, Myocardial infarction

Strengths and limitations of this study

  • This systematic review protocol is designed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocol and the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments.

  • No language and date restrictions will be used, to include the maximum number of relevant studies.

  • The publication of this protocol will ensure use of a preplanned methodology, helping to reduce the risk of biased reporting and avoid duplication of effort.

  • The review will not include studies of instruments that have self-efficacy in their construct (eg, self-management, self-care), limiting only to self-efficacy instruments for coronary patients.

  • This protocol may be limited by the lack of patient and public involvement in its development.

Introduction

Self-efficacy is defined as the belief of individuals about their ability to organise and perform a certain activity. It consists of elements of awareness, planning and motivation, which can reflect on self-responsibility throughout the disease process;1 thus, it is important for health promotion and management of chronic diseases.1–3 Moreover, self-efficacy is associated with psychological well-being, improved quality of life and better rehabilitation adherence.4 5

Measurement instruments of self-efficacy can be general,6 for specific health conditions (eg, feeding behaviour, physical activity and medication adherence)7–9 or specific diseases (eg, asthma, stroke and coronary artery disease (CAD)).10–13 Although many scales and questionnaires are available for self-efficacy, literature lacks methodological rigour and choice of instrument for individuals in pulmonary, metabolic and cardiovascular rehabilitation programmes.

CAD is characterised as reduced coronary artery lumen due to atherosclerotic plaques and may lead to chest pain, pressure or tightness sensation at different degrees of exertion and dyspnoea.14 15 Conventional treatment implies cardiovascular rehabilitation and changes in daily habits. The admission of individuals to cardiovascular rehabilitation programmes aims to delay and prevent complications and improve physical fitness through aerobic and strength training.16

Therefore, instruments assessing self-efficacy are needed to prevent complications and increase treatment adherence.1 3 In this context, the assessment of cardiac self-efficacy instruments for individuals with CAD will support healthcare professionals in individual interventions and improve self-efficacy of patients. This systematic review aims to identify instruments developed to assess cardiac self-efficacy in individuals with CAD and evaluate methodological quality and measurement properties. We also aim to link the content of instruments to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Based on this, the review will facilitate identifying discrepancies in measurement instruments and guide further research.

Methods and analysis

Study design and registration

This protocol was developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P)17 and the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN).18 19 The protocol was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews. Relevant changes in the systematic review will be documented in the PROSPERO and published in the final study report.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies on the development of assessment of measurement properties of cardiac self-efficacy instruments for individuals with CAD will be included without language and date restrictions. Translation of other languages will be performed by language experts. Clinical trials or validation studies using self-reported or proxy-reported measurements and those published as abstracts will be excluded. Moreover, studies of instruments that have self-efficacy in their construct (eg, self-management, self-care) will also be excluded, limiting to self-efficacy instruments for coronary patients.

Search strategy

The search strategy will be conducted from database inception to the date of the final searches in MEDLINE (ovid), Web of Science, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases considering the following: (1) construct of interest (cardiac self-efficacy); (2) target population (individuals with CAD); (3) type of instrument (questionnaire or scale) and (4) measurement properties; the latter will be assessed using search filters validated for measurement studies and already applied in previous reviews. Additional searches for relevant studies will be manually performed in reference lists of primary studies and review articles. Searches will be repeated before the final analysis to check for new studies. Online supplemental file 1 shows the search strategies we developed for the databases search. The study will follow COSMIN recommendations.20

Supplementary data

bmjopen-2022-062794supp001.pdf

Screening and selection of studies

The search results will be imported into the reference list management tool Mendeley (https://www.mendeley.com). Duplicates will be deleted before selections, and the reference list exported to the Rayyan Qatar Computing Research Institute systematic review platform (https://rayyan.qcri.org).21 The detailed selection process will be presented in the PRISMA-P flowchart.

Two independent authors (JABA and DAL) will select studies using titles and abstracts, conduct a complete reading of potentially eligible studies and identify and record reasons for excluding those ineligible. In the case of disagreement, a virtual meeting will be held for discussion and consultation with a third reviewer (LPG).

Data extraction

Two authors (JABA and DAL) will extract data following the Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA guidelines. Other authors will independently review data to verify inclusion and exclusion criteria. The extracted information will include first author, year of publication, general characteristics of the instrument (construct, subscales, number of items and version), study design, sample size, characteristics of individuals (eg, age, sex, location, country, language, methods for selecting participants and response rate) and results of measurement properties (ie, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, content validity (including face validity), construct validity (subdivided into structural validity, hypothesis testing and cross-cultural validity), validity of criterion, responsiveness and interpretability (not a measurement property, but necessary to adapt a research instrument or clinical practice)).

Data quality

Methodological quality of studies will be assessed by two independent authors (RBF and JCL) using COSMIN RoB Checklist.18 19 This tool considers 10 measurement properties and contains nine boxes with 3 to 35 items. Each box assigns a methodological quality score for instrument development: (1) content validity, (2) structural validity, (3) internal consistency, (4) cross-cultural validity and measurement invariance, (5) reliability, (6) measurement error, (7) criterion validity, (8) hypothesis testing for construct validity and (9) responsiveness. Each item has four response options: inadequate, doubtful, adequate and very good.22 Disagreements will be solved by a third author (KSM).

The content extracted from measurement instruments will be compared using the ICF framework.23–25 Two independent authors (JABA and RBF) will evaluate the content and link items of questionnaires to ICF standards. After, a third author (JCL) will review the content.

Data synthesis

A narrative synthesis of results will be provided. In the possibility of validation studies of the same instrument for different populations, methodological and psychometric properties, quality of such studies will be addressed as a unique instrument but discussing the particularity of each version. A combination of measurement properties will determine the overall evidence of the instrument. Studies will be grouped according to similarity in terms of language, instrument version, study population and application form.

Results will be evaluated in clusters or summarised against the criteria for good measurement properties to determine whether they are sufficient (+), insufficient (−), inconsistent (±) or indeterminate (?). Furthermore, a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation will determine study quality.26 27

Afterward, instruments will be categorised and justified according to COSMIN recommendations:28 (A) instrument is recommended for use and results are reliable; (B) when it may be recommended but requires further research to assess quality of these instruments and (C) instrument should not be recommended.

Patient and public involvement

None.

Ethics and dissemination

The study does not require ethics committee approval since it is based on published data. Evidence from this systematic review will be disseminated through publication of results in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at scientific conferences.

Supplementary Material

Reviewer comments:
Author's manuscript:

Footnotes

Contributors: Authors made substantial contributions to the study design, developed inclusion criteria and search strategies. JABA developed the protocol, RBF, DAL, JCL, KSM and LPG provided critical insights and reviewed the protocol. JABA registered the protocol in the PROSPERO database. All authors read and approved the final version of the protocol.

Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests: None declared.

Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Author note: This study was partly financed by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superiror – Brasil (CAPES). Fiance Code 001.

Supplemental material: This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

References

1. Bandura A. Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Educ Behav 2004;31:143–64. 10.1177/1090198104263660 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. Roest AM, Martens EJ, Denollet J, et al. . Prognostic association of anxiety post myocardial infarction with mortality and new cardiac events: a meta-analysis. Psychosom Med 2010;72:563–9. 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181dbff97 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. Bandura AS-efficacy, Ramachaudran IVS.. Encyclopedia of human behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1994. [Google Scholar]
4. Joekes K, Van Elderen T, Schreurs K.. Self-Efficacy and overprotection are related to quality of life, psychological well-being and self-management in cardiac patients. J Health Psychol 2007;12:4–16. 10.1177/1359105306069096 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Katch H. The role of self-efficacy in cardiovascular disease self-management: a review of effective programs. Patient Intell 2010;2:33–44. 10.2147/PI.S12624 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Luszczynska A, Scholz U, Schwarzer R.. The general self-efficacy scale: multicultural validation studies. J Psychol 2005;139:439–57. 10.3200/JRLP.139.5.439-457 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Birkett NJ, Hotz SB.. A self-efficacy scale for heart-healthy eating. Can J Public Health 1994;85:201–4. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
8. Wong EML, Leung DYP, Sit JWH, et al. . Prospective validation of the Chinese version of the self-efficacy for exercise scale among middle-aged patients with coronary heart disease. Rehabil Nurs 2020;45:74–9. 10.1097/RNJ.0000000000000156 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Saffari M, Zeidi IM, Fridlund B, et al. . A Persian adaptation of medication adherence self-efficacy scale (MASES) in hypertensive patients: psychometric properties and factor structure. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev 2015;22:247–55. 10.1007/s40292-015-0101-8 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Holley S, Knibb R, Latter S, et al. . Development and validation of the adolescent asthma self-efficacy questionnaire (AASEQ). Eur Respir J 2019;54:1801375–10. 10.1183/13993003.01375-2018 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Topçu S, Oğuz S.. Translation and validation study for the stroke self-efficacy questionnaire in stroke survivors. Int J Nurs Pract 2018;24:e12646–8. 10.1111/ijn.12646 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Sullivan MD, LaCroix AZ, Russo J, et al. . Self-Efficacy and self-reported functional status in coronary heart disease: a six-month prospective study. Psychosom Med 1998;60:473–8. 10.1097/00006842-199807000-00014 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Fors A, Ulin K, Cliffordson C, et al. . The cardiac self-efficacy scale, a useful tool with potential to evaluate person-centred care. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2015;14:536–43. 10.1177/1474515114548622 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Li H, Sun K, Zhao R.. Inflammatory biomarkers of coronary heart disease. Front Biosci 2018;10:185–96. 10.2741/s508 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Cagle SD, Cooperstein N.. Coronary artery disease: diagnosis and management. Prim Care 2018;45:45–61. 10.1016/j.pop.2017.10.001 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
16. Carvalho Tde, Milani M, Ferraz AS, et al. . Brazilian Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Guideline - 2020. Arq Bras Cardiol 2020;114:943–87. 10.36660/abc.20200407 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;349:g7647–25. 10.1136/bmj.g7647 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
18. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. . The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2010;19:539–49. 10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. . The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010;10:22. 10.1186/1471-2288-10-22 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, et al. . Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res 2009;18:1115–23. 10.1007/s11136-009-9528-5 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, et al. . Rayyan—a web and mobile APP for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016;5:1–10. 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, et al. . COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 2018;27:1171–9. 10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Cieza A, Geyh S, Chatterji S, et al. . Icf linking rules: an update based on lessons learned. J Rehabil Med 2005;37:212–8. 10.1080/16501970510040263 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Cieza A, Brockow T, Ewert T, et al. . Linking health-status measurements to the International classification of functioning, disability and health. J Rehabil Med 2002;34:205–10. 10.1080/165019702760279189 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Castro SSde, Castaneda L, Araújo ESde.. Aferição de funcionalidade em inquéritos de saúde no Brasil: discussão sobre instrumentos baseados Na Classificação Internacional de Funcionalidade, Incapacidade E Saúde (CIF). Rev Bras Epidemiol 2016;19:679–87. 10.1590/1980-5497201600030018 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, et al. . Grade guidelines: 14. going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:719–25. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.013 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Andrews JC, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, et al. . Grade guidelines: 15. going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:726–35. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.003 [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Mokkink LB, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL.. COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) - user manual Netherlands: COSMIN,, 2018. Available: https://www.cosmin.nl/wp-content/uploads/COSMIN-syst-review-for-PROMs-manual_version-1_feb-2018-1.pdf [Accessed 20 Dec 2021].

Articles from BMJ Open are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

Citations & impact 


Impact metrics

Jump to Citations

Citations of article over time

Article citations

Similar Articles 


To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.


Funding 


Funders who supported this work.

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (1)