Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1371/journal.pone.0177321 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1371/journal.pone.0177321 C5428933!5428933 !28498838     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 251.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 251.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\28498838 .jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117       PLoS+One 2017 ; 12 (5 ): e0177321 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=28498838 |t=2017. Assessing medical professionalism: A systematic review of instruments and their measurement properties |pdf=|usr=}}{{28498838 }} gab.com Text Assessing medical professionalism: A systematic review of instruments and their measurement properties JO: PLoS One http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=28498838 #FOAvip BACKGROUND: Over the last three decades, various instruments were developed and employed to assess medical professionalism, but their measurement properties have yet to be fully evaluated. This study aimed to systematically evaluate these instruments' measurement properties and the methodological quality of their related studies within a universally acceptable standardized framework and then provide corresponding recommendations. METHODS: A systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO was conducted to collect studies published from 1990-2015. After screening titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility, the articles included in this study were classified according to their respective instrument's usage. A two-phase assessment was conducted: 1) methodological quality was assessed by following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist; and 2) the quality of measurement properties was assessed according to Terwee's criteria. Results were integrated using best-evidence synthesis to look for recommendable instruments. RESULTS: After screening 2,959 records, 74 instruments from 80 existing studies were included. The overall methodological quality of these studies was unsatisfactory, with reasons including but not limited to unknown missing data, inadequate sample sizes, and vague hypotheses. Content validity, cross-cultural validity, and criterion validity were either unreported or negative ratings in most studies. Based on best-evidence synthesis, three instruments were recommended: Hisar's instrument for nursing students, Nurse Practitioners' Roles and Competencies Scale, and Perceived Faculty Competency Inventory. CONCLUSION: Although instruments measuring medical professionalism are diverse, only a limited number of studies were methodologically sound. Future studies should give priority to systematically improving the performance of existing instruments and to longitudinal studies. Twit Text FOAVip Assessing medical professionalism: A systematic review of instruments and their measurement properties ????PLoS One http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=28498838 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=28498838 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|28498838 }}</ref> Assessing medical professionalism: A systematic review of instruments and their measurement properties #MMPMID28498838 Li H ; Ding N ; Zhang Y ; Liu Y ; Wen D PLoS One 2017[]; 12 (5 ): e0177321 PMID28498838 show ga BACKGROUND: Over the last three decades, various instruments were developed and employed to assess medical professionalism, but their measurement properties have yet to be fully evaluated. This study aimed to systematically evaluate these instruments' measurement properties and the methodological quality of their related studies within a universally acceptable standardized framework and then provide corresponding recommendations. METHODS: A systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO was conducted to collect studies published from 1990-2015. After screening titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility, the articles included in this study were classified according to their respective instrument's usage. A two-phase assessment was conducted: 1) methodological quality was assessed by following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist; and 2) the quality of measurement properties was assessed according to Terwee's criteria. Results were integrated using best-evidence synthesis to look for recommendable instruments. RESULTS: After screening 2,959 records, 74 instruments from 80 existing studies were included. The overall methodological quality of these studies was unsatisfactory, with reasons including but not limited to unknown missing data, inadequate sample sizes, and vague hypotheses. Content validity, cross-cultural validity, and criterion validity were either unreported or negative ratings in most studies. Based on best-evidence synthesis, three instruments were recommended: Hisar's instrument for nursing students, Nurse Practitioners' Roles and Competencies Scale, and Perceived Faculty Competency Inventory. CONCLUSION: Although instruments measuring medical professionalism are diverse, only a limited number of studies were methodologically sound. Future studies should give priority to systematically improving the performance of existing instruments and to longitudinal studies. |*Professionalism [MESH] |Attitude of Health Personnel [MESH] |Health Status [MESH]Assessing medical professionalism: A systematic review of instruments (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing