Identification of preliminary core outcome domains for communication about childhood vaccination: An online Delphi survey

Evidence gaps and challenges in maintaining and increasing vaccine uptake: A Delphi survey with Australian stakeholders

ISSUE ADDRESSED

Increasing and maintaining vaccination uptake is crucial for preventing and managing infectious diseases. In the context of the post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic landscape, this paper examines the perceptions of immunisation implementers and policymakers to uncover the challenges and evidence gaps in routine immunisation efforts.

METHODS

We conducted an online two-round modified Delphi survey with immunisation experts, senior public servants, policymakers, policy advisory groups, and representatives from peak bodies from across Australia. We asked respondents to outline what they see as the greatest challenges to increasing and maintaining uptake of recommended vaccines in Australia; the most difficult aspects of their work in vaccination; the largest evidence gaps in vaccine uptake; and the kinds of social and behavioural research they would like to see prioritised.

RESULTS

The two most important challenges for increasing and maintaining vaccine uptake were effectively communicating the benefits of vaccines to parents and the public and ensuring accessible and affordable vaccination services. Participants strongly agreed that 'communication about the importance of vaccination' was the most difficult aspect of their work. Consistently important was the need to better engage specific population groups, such as culturally and linguistically diverse people, pregnant people, at risk cohorts, and health care providers. Social and behavioural research about 'how to effectively address hesitancy' was ranked highly among participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this project help provide an understanding of the behavioural, social, ethical, and policy knowledge needs for immunisation policy and implementation in Australia. To respond to vaccine challenges, increase coverage and build public trust in vaccination, policymakers and governments should incorporate social research into vaccination programmes. SO WHAT?: Australia is preparing to launch a Centre for Disease Control. This study demonstrates the importance of integrating social, behavioural, ethical, and policy research into the fabric of this new enterprise. It underlines the need to capacity-build a workforce able to deliver high-quality research in these areas, address the needs of immunisation implementers and policymakers, and achieve good outcomes for Australians.

Prevalence of caregiver hesitancy for vaccinations in children and its associated factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This review aimed to systematically compare and pool the prevalence of all the known evidence on caregiver hesitancy and to describe the factors influencing vaccine hesitancy among caregiver worldwide such as COVID-19, MMR, Influenza, HPV and others. We searched article from few electronic databases (PubMed, CENTRAL, ProQuest, and Web of Science) from inception to August 2023 using specific keywords for example caregiver, parents, prevalence, factor, hesitancy, and others. We included population-based studies that reported the prevalence of caregiver hesitancy. We used random-effects meta-analyses for pool prevalence estimates of caregiver hesitancy. A total of 765 studies met our inclusion criteria, containing data on 38,210,589 caregivers from seven regions across the globe. Overall or pool prevalence of vaccine hesitancy among caregiver is 25.0% (95% CI: 0.22-0.27, I2 = 99.91%, p = 0.001). Based on the evidence gathered, vaccine hesitancy was found to be religious sentiments, personal beliefs, perceived safety concerns, and a desire for more information from healthcare providers, along with factors related to availability, accessibility, affordability, and acceptability of vaccinations. Vaccine safety and efficiency have been identified as the main factor for caregiver vaccine hesitancy globally with a prevalence of 91.4%. Trial registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022331629. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022331629.

Training health workers and community influencers to be Vaccine Champions: a mixed-methods RE-AIM evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Increasing trust and confidence in vaccines is a global priority, as countries have grappled with delivering COVID-19 vaccines, maintaining routine childhood vaccination rates and introducing new vaccines. Community-based vaccine promotion interventions are commonly implemented, but effectiveness evidence is limited. In 2022, supported by the Australian Government and in partnership with Fiji's Ministry of Health and UNICEF, we codesigned, delivered and comprehensively evaluated a vaccine education and communication training programme for health workers and community influencers to promote COVID-19 and routine immunisation.

METHODS

The Vaccine Champions programme included three phases: (1) codesign with Fiji stakeholders; (2) vaccine education and communication training for Vaccine Champions and (3) support for Champions to deliver community vaccine discussion sessions over 6 months.The RE-AIM framework evaluation measured programme reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance. Mixed-methods data were collected through interviews, surveys and field notes, integrating qualitative and quantitative data to triangulate findings. Primary outcomes included Champions' knowledge, communication self-efficacy, trust in COVID-19 vaccines, programme satisfaction and community members' intention to vaccinate.

RESULTS

We trained 35 Champions (27/35 female), including health workers, faith and community influencers. Half had a health background (17/35). Champions conducted 54 discussion sessions, reaching 1717 community members. Most Champions (22/35) conducted at least 1 session, with 16 running 3 or more. Champions who did not run sessions reported barriers like lack of confidence and competing duties. Training increased Champions' communication self-efficacy and trust in COVID-19 vaccines. Community member intention to vaccinate increased from 41% (394/960) to 83% (822/991) before and after a session. The programme was well received with interest in continued engagement.

CONCLUSION

Training health workers and community Vaccine Champions can promote vaccine confidence. Programmes require government support and engagement for sustainability. Robust evaluation frameworks are needed to build the evidence base.

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.

Definition and Classification of Postoperative Complications After Cardiac Surgery: A Pilot Delphi Study (Preprint)

Background

Postoperative complications following cardiac surgery are common and represent a serious burden to health services and society. However, there is a lack of consensus among experts on what events should be considered as a “complication” and how to assess their severity.

Objective

This study aimed to consult domain experts to pilot the development of a definition and classification system for complications following cardiac surgery with the goal to allow the progression of standardized clinical processes and systems in cardiac surgery.

Methods

We conducted a Delphi study, which is a well-established method to reach expert consensus on complex topics. We sent 2 rounds of surveys to domain experts, including cardiac surgeons and anesthetists, to define and classify postoperative complications following cardiac surgery. The responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using a thematic analysis framework.

Results

In total, 71 and 37 experts’ opinions were included in the analysis in Round 1 and Round 2 of the study, respectively. Cardiac anesthetists and cardiac critical care specialists took part in the study. Cardiac surgeons did not participate. Experts agreed that a classification for postoperative complications for cardiac surgery is useful, and consensus was reached for the generic definition of a postoperative complication in cardiac surgery. Consensus was also reached on classification of complications according to the following 4 levels: “Mild,” “Moderate,” “Severe,” and “Death.” Consensus was also reached on definitions for “Mild” and “Severe” categories of complications.

Conclusions

Domain experts agreed on the definition and classification of complications in cardiac surgery for “Mild” and “Severe” complications. The standardization of complication identification, recording, and reporting in cardiac surgery should help the development of quality benchmarks, clinical audit, care quality assessment, resource planning, risk management, communication, and research.

Public health practitioner perspectives on dealing with measles outbreaks if high anti-vaccination sentiment is present

Background

Communities with low vaccination rates are at greater risk during outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases. Most Australian parents support vaccines, but some refuse and are often judged harshly by their community, especially during an outbreak. We sought the perspectives of Australian public health experts on the key issues faced when managing a measles outbreak in an area with high anti-vaccination sentiment.

Methods

A measles outbreak scenario formed the basis of a 3-round modified Delphi process to identify key practitioner concerns in relation to parents/carers who don’t follow the recommended vaccination schedule. We surveyed a range of professionals in the field: policymakers, infectious disease experts, immunisation program staff, and others involved in delivering childhood vaccinations, to identify key priorities when responding to an outbreak in a community with low vaccination coverage.

Results

Findings indicate that responses to measles outbreaks in communities with high anti-vaccination sentiment are motivated by concerns about the potential for a much larger outbreak event. The highest operational priority is to isolate infected children. The two most highly ranked practical issues are mistrust from non-vaccinating members of the local region and combatting misinformation about vaccines. Trying to change minds of such individuals is not a priority during an outbreak, nor is vaccinating their children. Using media and social media to provide information about the outbreak and measures the public can take to limit the spread of the disease was a focus.

Conclusions

Our findings provide a deeper understanding of the challenges faced during an outbreak and priorities for communicating with communities where there is a high level of anti-vaccination sentiment. In the context of a global pandemic, the results of this study also have implications for managing public health responses to community transmission of SARS-CoV-2, as COVID-19 vaccines becomes widely available.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-10604-3.

An international Delphi survey helped develop consensus-based core outcome domains for trials in peritoneal dialysis

Shared decision-making about clinical care options in end-stage kidney disease is limited by inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes and the omission of patient-important outcomes in trials. Here we generated a consensus-based prioritized list of outcomes to be reported during trials in peritoneal dialysis (PD). In an international, online, three-round Delphi survey, patients/caregivers and health professionals rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (with 7-9 indicating critical importance) and provided comments. Using a Best-Worst Scale (BWS), the relative importance of outcomes was estimated. Comments were analyzed thematically. In total, 873 participants (207 patients/caregivers and 666 health professionals) from 68 countries completed round one, 629 completed round two and 530 completed round three. The top outcomes were PD-related infection, membrane function, peritoneal dialysis failure, cardiovascular disease, death, catheter complications, and the ability to do usual activities. Compared with health professionals, patients/caregivers gave higher priority to six outcomes: blood pressure (mean difference, 0.4), fatigue (0.3), membrane function (0.3), impact on family/friends (0.1), peritoneal thickening (0.1) and usual activities (0.1). Four themes were identified that underpinned the reasons for ratings: contributing to treatment longevity, preserving quality of life, escalating morbidity, and irrelevant and futile information and treatment. Patients/caregivers and health professionals gave highest priority to clinical outcomes. In contrast to health professionals, patients/caregivers gave higher priority to lifestyle-related outcomes including the impact on family/friends and usual activities. Thus, prioritization will inform a core outcome set to improve the consistency and relevance of outcomes for trials in PD.

Supporting implementation of Cochrane methods in complex communication reviews: resources developed and lessons learned for editorial practice and policy

Every healthcare encounter involves some form of communication and there is growing recognition that effective health communication is central to the delivery of safe, high-quality healthcare. Conversely, poor communication has a range of adverse consequences for those receiving healthcare and the systems delivering care, including elevated patient safety risks. Increasing understanding and documentation of the key role that good communication plays in healthcare design and delivery has meant there is growing demand from policy-makers and other decision-makers for evidence on the effects of health communication interventions - that is, how best to communicate. While systematic reviews of such interventions are fundamental to building this evidence base, such interventions and reviews are often highly complex and pose considerable challenges for authors and editors. In this paper, we describe our experience as a Cochrane editorial group identifying common issues in reviews of communication interventions and developing resources to support authors to better meet these challenges. Our analysis found that issues typically fell into one or more of the following three stages of the review process: understanding and applying systematic review methods (e.g. selecting outcomes for analysis); reporting the review's methods (e.g. describing key decisions made in conducting the review); and interpreting the findings (e.g. incorporating quality of the evidence into findings of the review). We also found that common issues reflected both practical difficulties (such as the typically large size of reviews and disparate measures for outcomes) and conceptual challenges (for instance, the difficulties of identifying comparisons). While extensive advice for Cochrane systematic reviewers exists, this standardised advice does not cover all of the issues emerging for complex communication reviews. In response, we therefore developed a collection of resources, both general and targeted to specific methodological issues. Here, we describe the types of resources developed and the aims of these, the rationale for why we needed to fill specific gaps in existing advice, and reflect on the lessons for future editorial practice, policies and research in relation to the implementation of Cochrane review methods in the area of health communication.

Qualitative focus groups with stakeholders identify new potential outcomes related to vaccination communication

Introduction

Communication interventions are widely used to promote childhood vaccination and sustain vaccine acceptance, but communication’s role in changing people’s beliefs and behaviours is not well understood. To determine why these interventions work or where they fail, evaluations must measure a range of outcomes in addition to vaccination uptake. As part of a larger project to develop a preliminary Core Outcome Set for vaccination communication, we conducted a qualitative focus group study exploring how parents and health professionals perceive and experience communication encounters and what outcomes are relevant to them.

Methods

Focus group participants included parents and health professionals involved in vaccination communication (healthcare providers, researchers and policymakers). Participants discussed their experiences with communication for childhood vaccination, and what made the communication ‘successful’ or 'unsuccessful.'

Our analysis involved two stages: first, we thematically analysed the discussions, identifying key parent and professional themes. In stage two, we used an interpretive analysis approach to translate the themes and quotes into measurable outcomes. We compared these outcomes with outcomes measured in vaccination communication trials (previously identified and mapped).

Results

We held three focus groups with parents (n = 12) and four with professionals (n = 19). In stage one, we identified six parent themes (primarily related to decision-making) and five professional themes (primarily related to intervention planning, delivery and evaluation).

In stage two, we translated 47 outcomes from parents and 73 from professionals (91 total, de-duplicated). All stakeholders discussed attitudes or beliefs and decision-making outcomes most frequently. Most (66%) of the focus group-generated outcomes were not measured in vaccination communication trials.

Conclusion

Consulting with stakeholders through focus groups allowed us to explore how parents and professionals experienced vaccination communication, identify those aspects of the experience that were important to them, and translate these into outcomes that can be prioritised into a Core Outcome Set and measured in intervention evaluations.

Recruiting and retaining participants in e-Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: Evaluating the COMiT'ID study

Background

A Core Outcome Set (COS) is an agreed list of outcomes that are measured and reported in all clinical trials for a particular health condition. An ‘e-Delphi’ is an increasingly popular method for developing a COS whereby stakeholders are consulted via a multi-round online survey to reach agreement regarding the most important outcomes. Many COS studies seek diverse, international input that includes professionals and healthcare users. However, the recruitment and retention of participants can be deterred by various factors (e.g. language barriers and iterative, time-consuming rounds). This report evaluates the effectiveness of recruitment and retention methods used in the Core Outcome Measures in Tinnitus International Delphi (COMiT’ID) study using participant feedback from healthcare users, healthcare practitioners, researchers, commercial representatives and funders.

Methods

A range of methods were applied to recruit participants to the study and maintain engagement over the three rounds. Feedback on recruitment and retention methods was collected using a twenty-item online questionnaire, with free text comments.

Results

A personalised email invitation was the most frequent recruitment route, and 719 professionals and healthcare users consented to take part. Retention of each stakeholder group ranged from 76 to 91% completing all three e-Delphi rounds. Feedback was given by 379 respondents. A majority of respondents were satisfied with the study methods that were implemented to promote retention. Over 55% indicated that their overall experience closely matched their expectations at the start of the study, and over 90% felt that their contribution was appreciated.

Conclusions

This report highlights study methods that worked well with respect to recruitment and retention, and those that did not. Findings provide a unique contribution to the growing evidence base of good practice in COS development by demonstrating the relative effectiveness of recruitment and retention methods for an e-Delphi survey.

Trial registration

This project was registered (November 2014) in the database of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. The protocol is published in Trials (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2123-0).

Face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination

BACKGROUND

Early childhood vaccination is an essential global public health practice that saves two to three million lives each year, but many children do not receive all the recommended vaccines. To achieve and maintain appropriate coverage rates, vaccination programmes rely on people having sufficient awareness and acceptance of vaccines.Face-to-face information or educational interventions are widely used to help parents understand why vaccines are important; explain where, how and when to access services; and address hesitancy and concerns about vaccine safety or efficacy. Such interventions are interactive, and can be adapted to target particular populations or identified barriers.This is an update of a review originally published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on vaccination status and parental knowledge, attitudes and intention to vaccinate.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and two trial registries (July and August 2017). We screened reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. We had no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effects of face-to-face interventions delivered to parents or expectant parents to inform or educate them about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face-to-face intervention. The World Health Organization recommends that children receive all early childhood vaccines, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV), which is delivered to adolescents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently reviewed all search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we found four new studies, for a total of ten studies. We included seven RCTs and three cluster-RCTs involving a total of 4527 participants, although we were unable to pool the data from one cluster-RCT. Three of the ten studies were conducted in low- or middle- income countries.All included studies compared face-to-face interventions with control. Most studies evaluated the effectiveness of a single intervention session delivered to individual parents. The interventions were an even mix of short (ten minutes or less) and longer sessions (15 minutes to several hours).Overall, elements of the study designs put them at moderate to high risk of bias. All studies but one were at low risk of bias for sequence generation (i.e. used a random number sequence). For allocation concealment (i.e. the person randomising participants was unaware of the study group to which participant would be allocated), three were at high risk and one was judged at unclear risk of bias. Due to the educational nature of the intervention, blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in any studies. The risk of bias due to blinding of outcome assessors was judged as low for four studies. Most studies were at unclear risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. Other potential sources of bias included failure to account for clustering in a cluster-RCT and significant unexplained baseline differences between groups. One cluster-RCT was at high risk for selective recruitment of participants.We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low for the outcomes of children's vaccination status, parents' attitudes or beliefs, intention to vaccinate, adverse effects (e.g. anxiety), and immunisation cost, and moderate for parents' knowledge or understanding. All studies had limitations in design. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence where we judged that studies had problems with randomisation or allocation concealment, or when outcomes were self-reported by participants who knew whether they'd received the intervention or not. We also downgraded the certainty for inconsistency (vaccination status), imprecision (intention to vaccinate and adverse effects), and indirectness (attitudes or beliefs, and cost).Low-certainty evidence from seven studies (3004 participants) suggested that face-to-face interventions to inform or educate parents may improve vaccination status (risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.37). Moderate-certainty evidence from four studies (657 participants) found that face-to-face interventions probably slightly improved parent knowledge (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.19, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.38), and low-certainty evidence from two studies (179 participants) suggested they may slightly improve intention to vaccinate (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.85). Low-certainty evidence found the interventions may lead to little or no change in parent attitudes or beliefs about vaccination (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.27; three studies, 292 participants), or in parents' anxiety (mean difference (MD) -1.93, 95% CI -7.27 to 3.41; one study, 90 participants). Only one study (365 participants) measured the intervention cost of a case management strategy, reporting that the estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care (low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported outcomes associated with parents' experience of the intervention (e.g. satisfaction).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that face-to-face information or education may improve or slightly improve children's vaccination status, parents' knowledge, and parents' intention to vaccinate.Face-to-face interventions may be more effective in populations where lack of awareness or understanding of vaccination is identified as a barrier (e.g. where people are unaware of new or optional vaccines). The effect of the intervention in a population where concerns about vaccines or vaccine hesitancy is the primary barrier is less clear. Reliable and validated scales for measuring more complex outcomes, such as attitudes or beliefs, are necessary in order to improve comparisons of the effects across studies.

Defining and evaluating novel procedures for involving patients in Core Outcome Set research: creating a meaningful long list of candidate outcome domains

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Outcome domains are aspects of a condition that matter to patients and clinicians and can be measured to assess treatment effects. For tinnitus, examples include 'tinnitus loudness' and 'ability to concentrate'. This study focuses on the first stage of agreeing which outcome domains should be measured in all clinical trials of tinnitus. Crucially, it involves identifying outcome domains, prior to a voting process. This article describes how we effectively involved patients in that study design process, and reflects on the impact of their input.The study first compiled a long list of all possible outcome domains before asking interested parties, including patients, to vote which ones to include. Ensuring patients fully participate in this process holds unique challenges as it can be long, repetitive and its purpose far removed from their needs. These challenges may be addressed by involving patients in designing the research. There is evidence that other research teams are doing this, but its reporting is not detailed enough to guide others. Our paper seeks to address this.We describe how we involved patients (people living with tinnitus) in creating a long list of outcome domains that we included in our study. We also reflect on the benefits this brought. Two patients partnered with us in designing the survey. We also consulted an independent patient review panel. Involving patients reduced the list of domains included in the survey and made domain names and associated descriptions clearer. Our resulting survey performed well in recruiting and retaining patients as participants.

ABSTRACT

Background Tinnitus is a complex audiological condition affecting many different domains of everyday life. Clinical trials of tinnitus interventions measure and report those outcome domains inconsistently and this hinders direct comparison between study findings. To address this problem, an ongoing project is developing a Core Outcome Set; an agreed list of outcome domains to be measured and reported in all future trials. Part of this project uses a consensus methodology ('Delphi' survey), whereby all relevant stakeholders identify important and critical outcome domains from a long list of candidates. This article addresses a gap in the patient involvement literature by describing and reflecting on our involvement of patients to create a meaningful long list of candidate outcome domains.Methods Two Public Research Partners with lived experience of tinnitus reviewed an initial list of 124 outcome domains over two face-to-face workshops. With the Study Management Team, they interpreted each candidate outcome domain and generated a plain language description. Following this, the domain names and descriptions underwent an additional lay review by 14 patients and 5 clinical experts, via an online survey platform.Results Insights gained from the workshops and survey feedback prompted substantial, unforeseen modifications to the long list. These included the reduction of the number of outcome domains (from 124 to 66) via the exclusion of broad concepts and consolidation of equivalent domains or domains outside the scope of the study. Reviewers also applied their lived experience of tinnitus to bring clarity and relevance to domain names and plain language descriptions. Four impacts on the Delphi survey were observed: recruitment exceeded the target by 171%, there were equivalent numbers of patient and professional participants (n = 358 and n = 312, respectively), feedback was mostly positive, and retention was high (87%).Conclusions Patient involvement was an integral and transformative step of the study design process. Patient involvement was impactful because the online Delphi survey was successful in recruiting and retaining participants, and there were many comments about a positive participatory experience. Seven general methodological features are highlighted which fit with general principles of good patient involvement. These can benefit other Core Outcome Set developers.

The COMiT'ID Study: Developing Core Outcome Domains Sets for Clinical Trials of Sound-, Psychology-, and Pharmacology-Based Interventions for Chronic Subjective Tinnitus in Adults

Subjective tinnitus is a chronic heterogeneous condition that is typically managed using intervention approaches based on sound devices, psychologically informed therapies, or pharmaceutical products. For clinical trials, there are currently no common standards for assessing or reporting intervention efficacy. This article reports on the first of two steps to establish a common standard, which identifies what specific tinnitus-related complaints ("outcome domains") are critical and important to assess in all clinical trials to determine whether an intervention has worked. Using purposive sampling, 719 international health-care users with tinnitus, health-care professionals, clinical researchers, commercial representatives, and funders were recruited. Eligibility was primarily determined by experience of one of the three interventions of interest. Following recommended procedures for gaining consensus, three intervention-specific, three-round, Delphi surveys were delivered online. Each Delphi survey was followed by an in-person consensus meeting. Viewpoints and votes involved all stakeholder groups, with approximately a 1:1 ratio of health-care users to professionals. "Tinnitus intrusiveness" was voted in for all three interventions. For sound-based interventions, the minimum set included "ability to ignore," "concentration," "quality of sleep," and "sense of control." For psychology-based interventions, the minimum set included "acceptance of tinnitus," "mood," "negative thoughts and beliefs," and "sense of control." For pharmacology-based interventions, "tinnitus loudness" was the only additional core outcome domain. The second step will next identify how those outcome domains should best be measured. The uptake of these intervention-specific standards in clinical trials will improve research quality, enhance clinical decision-making, and facilitate meta-analysis in systematic reviews.