Consensus development of priority outcome domains for community mental health cares by multiple stakeholders: Protocol for an online Delphi study in Japan

Let's get aligned! Developing a core outcome set for clinical trials in eating disorders

OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to review the outcome measures/assessment instruments used and to assess their heterogeneity/homogeneity in eating disorders (EDs) randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

APA PsycInfo, PubMed, and Embase were searched in December 2022 to identify studies published between and inclusive of January 2012 and December 2022. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were: (1) complete articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, which were: (2) randomised trials, (3) in a clinical setting (4) with human subjects, (5) with an ICD or DSM diagnosis of Anorexia Nervosa, Binge Eating Disorder, or Bulimia Nervosa. The selected papers also: (6) used one or more standardised instruments designed to measure one or more psychometric characteristics associated with ED as a primary or secondary outcome, as judged by the authors of this systematic review, and (7) were published in English or Danish.

RESULTS

Ninety one articles were included, and a total of 196 outcome measures were collected.

DISCUSSION

The diversity of outcome measures in ED trials hampers result comparability and data integration. We suggest creating a core outcome measure set using the Delphi method, including clinician and patient-reported ED assessments, along with relevant comorbidity scales.

Enhancing evidence-informed policymaking in medicine and healthcare: stakeholder involvement in the Commons Project for rare diseases in Japan

BACKGROUND

Although stakeholder involvement in policymaking is attracting attention in the fields of medicine and healthcare, a practical methodology has not yet been established. Rare-disease policy, specifically research priority setting for the allocation of limited research resources, is an area where evidence generation through stakeholder involvement is expected to be effective. We generated evidence for rare-disease policymaking through stakeholder involvement and explored effective collaboration among stakeholders.

METHODS

We constructed a space called 'Evidence-generating Commons', where patients, family members, researchers, and former policymakers can share their knowledge and experiences and engage in continual deliberations on evidence generation. Ten rare diseases were consequently represented. In the 'Commons', 25 consecutive workshops were held predominantly online, from 2019 to 2021. These workshops focused on (1) clarification of difficulties faced by rare-disease patients, (2) development and selection of criteria for priority setting, and (3) priority setting through the application of the criteria. For the first step, an on-site workshop using sticky notes was held. The data were analysed based on KJ method. For the second and third steps, workshops on specific themes were held to build consensus. The workshop agendas and methods were modified based on participants' feedback.

RESULTS

The 'Commons' was established with 43 participants, resulting in positive effects such as capacity building, opportunities for interactions, mutual understanding, and empathy among the participants. The difficulties faced by patients with rare diseases were classified into 10 categories. Seven research topics were identified as priority issues to be addressed including 'impediments to daily life', 'financial burden', 'anxiety', and 'burden of hospital visits'. This was performed by synthesising the results of the application of the two criteria that were particularly important to strengthen future research on rare diseases. We also clarified high-priority research topics by using criteria valued more by patients and family members than by researchers and former policymakers, and criteria with specific perspectives.

CONCLUSION

We generated evidence for policymaking in the field of rare diseases. This study's insights into stakeholder involvement can enhance evidence-informed policymaking. We engaged in comprehensive discussions with policymakers regarding policy implementation and planned analysis of the participants' experiences in this project.