The increasing complexity of the core outcomes landscape

Implementation of the HOME core outcome set for clinical trials of atopic eczema-barriers and opportunities: the HOME IX meeting report

The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative established a core outcome set (COS) for atopic eczema (AE) clinical trials in 2019. This set encompasses four core outcome domains and corresponding measurement instruments: clinical signs (EASI), patient-reported symptoms (POEM and NRS 11 point for worst itch over the last 24 h), quality of life (DLQI/CDLQI/IDQoLI), and long-term control (Recap or ADCT). Following its roadmap, the HOME initiative is now focused on supporting implementation of the COS. To identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of the COS, and to guide the effort to promote COS uptake, a virtual consensus meeting was held over 2 days (September 25-26, 2021) attended by 55 participants (26 healthcare professionals, 16 methodologists, 5 patients, 4 industry representatives, and 4 students). Implementation themes were identified by a pre-meeting survey distributed to HOME members, presentations, and whole-group discussion. Participants were divided into five multi-professional small groups which ranked their top 3 most important themes, followed by whole-group discussion and anonymous consensus voting (consensus criteria: < 30% disagreement). Three most important implementation themes were identified and agreed upon: (1) awareness and stakeholder engagement, (2) universal applicability of the COS, and (3) ensuring minimum administrative burden. Working groups to address these issues are now a priority for the HOME initiative. The results from this meeting will inform the development of a HOME Implementation Roadmap in an effort to support other COS groups planning for effective implementation of their core sets.

Core Outcome Sets in Child Health: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Developing core outcome sets is essential to ensure that results of clinical trials are comparable and useful. A number of core outcome sets in pediatrics have been published, but a comprehensive in-depth understanding of core outcome sets in this field is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically identify core outcome sets in child health, collate the diseases to which core outcome sets have been applied, describe the methods used for development and stakeholder participation, and evaluate the methodological quality of existing core outcome sets.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched using relevant search terms, such as clinical trials, core outcome, and children, along with relevant websites, such as Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET). Four researchers worked in teams of 2, performed literature screening and data extraction, and evaluated the methodological quality of core outcome sets using the Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development (COS-STAD).

FINDINGS

A total of 77 pediatric core outcome sets were identified, mainly developed by organizations or researchers in Europe, North America, and Australia and mostly from the UK (22 [29%]) and the US (22 [29%]). A total of 77 conditions were addressed; the most frequent International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision category was diseases of the digestive system (14 [18%]). Most of the outcomes in pediatric core outcome sets were unordered (34 [44%]) or presented in custom classifications (29 [38%]). Core outcome sets used 1 or more of 8 development methods; the most frequent combination of methods was systematic review/literature review/scoping review, together with the Delphi approach and consensus for decision-making (10 [14%]). Among the 6 main types of stakeholders, clinical experts were the most frequently involved (74 [100%]), while industry representatives were rarely involved (4 [5%]). Only 6 core outcome sets (8%) met the 12 criteria of COS-STAD.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Future quality of pediatric core outcome sets should be improved based on the standards proposed by the COMET initiative, while core outcome sets methodology and reporting standards should be extended to pediatric populations to help improve the quality of core outcome sets in child health. In addition, the COMET outcome taxonomy should also add items applicable to children.

Patient-reported outcome measures used for shoulder disorders: An overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to synthesize the psychometric evidence on different patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for shoulder disorders.

METHODS

This overview conducted a search of six databases. Included systematic reviews must address at least one psychometric property from a PROM for shoulder disorders. Risk of bias was assessed by A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR).

RESULTS

Thirteen systematic reviews were identified that assessed measurement properties of 15 different PROMs. Based on AMSTAR, 1 review had a high risk of bias and 7 reviews had a moderate risk of bias. Excellent test-reliability scores of intraclass correlation coefficients (0.85-0.99) were reported by the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, Shoulder Pain and Dsiability Index, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. Construct validity was supported (r = 0.5-0.8) for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, Shoulder Pain and Dsiability Index, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. Limited evidence of responsiveness was reported across various PROMs.

CONCLUSION

Strong reliability and convergent validity properties have been reported across multiple reviews for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, Shoulder Pain and Dsiability Index, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score, Simple Shoulder Test and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, which could be considered for a core clinical outcome set.

Review finds core outcome set uptake in new studies and systematic reviews needs improvement

OBJECTIVE

To review evidence about the uptake of core outcome sets (COS). A COS is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in a specific area of health or health care.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This article provides an analysis of what is known about the uptake of COS in research. Similarities between COS and outcomes recommended by stakeholders in the evidence ecosystem is reviewed, and actions taken by them to facilitate COS uptake described.

RESULTS

COS uptake is low in most research areas. Common facilitators relate to trialist awareness and understanding. Common barriers were not including in the development process all specialties who might use the COS, and the lack of recommendations for how to measure the outcomes. Increasingly, COS developers are considering strategies for promoting uptake earlier in the process, including actions beyond traditional dissemination approaches. Overlap between COS and outcomes in regulatory documents and health technology assessments is good. An increasing number and variety of organisations are recommending COS be considered.

CONCLUSION

We suggest actions for various stakeholders for improving COS uptake. Research is needed to assess the impact of these actions to identify effective evidence-based strategies.

Organizational Leaders Perceptions of Barriers to Accessing Behavioral Health Services in a Low-Resource Community

Little is known about how to effectively implement behavioral health programs in low-resource communities. Leaders from 20 community-serving behavioral health organizations in Flint, MI, were asked about their organizations and the barriers that they, and the populations they serve, face in providing and accessing behavioral health services. Barriers are reported using a mixed-methods analysis, reporting the number and percentage of organizations that experienced the barrier along with example quotations from the organization leaders. The most frequently reported barrier to providing services was finding adequate funding (50%) while the most frequently reported barrier for accessing services was finding adequate and reliable transportation (30%). Comparisons of these findings with barriers reported by providers in different settings and those seeking services are discussed. These comparisons may provide an important next step in identifying areas where providers perceptions and the needs of the population are misaligned and for systemic improvements more broadly.

The development of a core outcomes set for self-management interventions for patients living with obesity

Self-management interventions (SMIs) can improve the life of patients living with obesity. However, there is variability in the outcomes used to assess the effectiveness of SMIs and these are often not relevant for patients. In the context of COMPAR-EU, our aim was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for the evaluation of SMIs for patients with obesity. We followed a four steps multimethod approach: (1) the development of the initial catalogue of outcomes; (2) a scoping review of reviews on patients' values and preferences on outcomes of self-management (SM); (3) a Delphi survey including patients and patient representatives to rate the importance of outcomes; and (4) a 2-day consensus workshop with patients, patient representatives, healthcare professionals and researchers. The initial catalogue included 82 outcomes. Ten patients and patient's representatives participated in the Delphi survey. We identified 16 themes through the thematic synthesis of the scoping review that informed 37.80% of the outcomes on initial catalogue. Five patients, five healthcare professionals, and four researchers participated in the consensus workshop. After the consensus process, 15 outcomes were selected to be part of the final COS, and five supplementary outcomes were also provided. We developed a COS for the evaluation of SMIs in obesity with a significant involvement of patients and other key stakeholders. This COS will help improving data synthesis and increasing the value of SM research data in healthcare decision making.

A core outcome set for studies evaluating interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium for adults requiring an acute care hospital admission: an international key stakeholder informed consensus study

BACKGROUND

Trials of interventions to prevent or treat delirium in adults in an acute hospital setting report heterogeneous outcomes. Our objective was to develop international consensus among key stakeholders for a core outcome set (COS) for future trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in adults with an acute care hospital admission and not admitted to an intensive care unit.

METHODS

A rigorous COS development process was used including a systematic review, qualitative interviews, modified Delphi consensus process, and in-person consensus using nominal group technique (registration http://www.comet - initiative.org/studies/details/796 ). Participants in qualitative interviews were delirium survivors or family members. Participants in consensus methods comprised international representatives from three stakeholder groups: researchers, clinicians, and delirium survivors and family members.

RESULTS

Item generation identified 8 delirium-specific outcomes and 71 other outcomes from 183 studies, and 30 outcomes from 18 qualitative interviews, including 2 that were not extracted from the systematic review. De-duplication of outcomes and formal consensus processes involving 110 experts including researchers (N = 32), clinicians (N = 63), and delirium survivors and family members (N = 15) resulted in a COS comprising 6 outcomes: delirium occurrence and reoccurrence, delirium severity, delirium duration, cognition, emotional distress, and health-related quality of life. Study limitations included exclusion of non-English studies and stakeholders and small representation of delirium survivors/family at the in-person consensus meeting.

CONCLUSIONS

This COS, endorsed by the American and Australian Delirium Societies and European Delirium Association, is recommended for future clinical trials evaluating delirium prevention or treatment interventions in adults presenting to an acute care hospital and not admitted to an intensive care unit.

Measures for the integration of health and social care services for long-term health conditions: a systematic review of reviews

Background

As people are living longer with higher incidences of long-term health conditions, there is a move towards greater integration of care, including integration of health and social care services. Integrated care needs to be comprehensively and systematically evaluated if it is to be implemented widely. We performed a systematic review of reviews to identify measures which have been used to assess integrated care across health and social care services for people living with long-term health conditions.

Methods

Four electronic databases (PUBMED; MEDLINE; EMBASE; Cochrane library of systematic reviews) were searched in August 2018 for relevant reviews evaluating the integration of health and social care between 1998 and 2018. Articles were assessed according to apriori eligibility criteria. A data extraction form was utilised to collate the identified measures into five categories.

Results

Of the 18 articles included, system outcomes and process measures were most frequently identified (15 articles each). Patient or carer reported outcomes were identified in 13 articles while health outcomes were reported in 12 articles. Structural measures were reported in nine articles. Challenges to measuring integration included the identification of a wide range of potential impacts of integration, difficulties in comparing findings due to differences in study design and heterogeneity of types of outcomes, and a need for appropriate, robust measurement tools.

Conclusions

Our review revealed no shortage of measures for assessing the structures, processes and outcomes of integrated care. The very large number of available measures and infrequent use of any common set make comparisons between schemes more difficult. The promotion of core measurement sets and stakeholder consultation would advance measurement in this area.

A scoping review of core outcome sets and their 'mapping' onto real-world data using prostate cancer as a case study

Background

A Core Outcomes Set (COS) is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical studies related to a specific condition. Using prostate cancer as a case study, we identified, summarized, and critically appraised published COS development studies and assessed the degree of overlap between them and selected real-world data (RWD) sources.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database to identify all COS studies developed for prostate cancer. Several characteristics (i.e., study type, methods for consensus, type of participants, outcomes included in COS and corresponding measurement instruments, timing, and sources) were extracted from the studies; outcomes were classified according to a predefined 38-item taxonomy. The study methodology was assessed based on the recent COS-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) recommendations. A ‘mapping’ exercise was conducted between the COS identified and RWD routinely collected in selected European countries.

Results

Eleven COS development studies published between 1995 and 2017 were retrieved, of which 8 were classified as ‘COS for clinical trials and clinical research’, 2 as ‘COS for practice’ and 1 as ‘COS patient reported outcomes’. Recommended outcomes were mainly categorized into ‘mortality and survival’ (17%), ‘outcomes related to neoplasm’ (18%), and ‘renal and urinary outcomes’ (13%) with no relevant differences among COS study types. The studies generally fulfilled the criteria for the COS-STAD ‘scope specification’ domain but not the ‘stakeholders involved’ and ‘consensus process’ domains. About 72% overlap existed between COS and linked administrative data sources, with important gaps. Linking with patient registries improved coverage (85%), but was sometimes limited to smaller follow-up patient groups.

Conclusions

This scoping review identified few COS development studies in prostate cancer, some quite dated and with a growing level of methodological quality over time. This study revealed promising overlap between COS and RWD sources, though with important limitations; linking established, national patient registries to administrative data provide the best means to additionally capture patient-reported and some clinical outcomes over time. Thus, increasing the combination of different data sources and the interoperability of systems to follow larger patient groups in RWD is required.