Incorporating patients' perspectives into the initial stages of core outcome set development: a rapid review of qualitative studies of type 2 diabetes

Outcomes of interventions in neonatal sepsis: A systematic review of qualitative research

BACKGROUND

While a systematic review exists detailing neonatal sepsis outcomes from clinical trials, there remains an absence of a qualitative systematic review capturing the perspectives of key stakeholders.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim is to identify outcomes from qualitative research on any intervention to prevent or improve the outcomes of neonatal sepsis that are important to parents, other family members, healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers as a part of the development of a core outcome set (COS) for neonatal sepsis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A literature search was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Publications describing qualitative data relating to neonatal sepsis outcomes were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Drawing on the concepts of thematic synthesis, texts related to outcomes were coded and grouped. These outcomes were then mapped to the domain headings of an existing model.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 6777 records screened, six studies were included. Overall, 19 outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The most frequently reported outcomes were those in the domains related to parents, healthcare workers and individual organ systemas such as gastrointestinal system. The remaining outcomes were classified under the headings of general outcomes, miscellaneous outcomes, survival, and infection.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes identified in this review are different from those reported in neonatal sepsis clinical trials, thus highlighting the importance of incorporating qualitative studies into COS development to encapsulate all relevant stakeholders' perspectives.

Clinical Patient-Relevant Outcome Domains for Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome-A Scoping Review and Expert Panels

Large variation exists in the monitoring of clinical outcome domains in patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS). Furthermore, it is unclear which outcome domains are important from the PSPS patient's perspective. The study objectives were to identify patient-relevant outcome domains for PSPS and to establish a PSPS outcomes framework. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, and EMBASE were searched to identify studies reporting views or preferences of PSPS patients on outcome domains. The Arksey and O'Malley framework was followed to identify outcome domains. An expert panel rated the domains based on the importance for PSPS patients they have treated. A framework of relevant outcome domains was established using the selected outcome domains by the expert panel. No studies were found for PSPS type 1. Five studies with 77 PSPS type 2 patients were included for further analysis. Fourteen outcome domains were identified. An expert panel, including 27 clinical experts, reached consensus on the domains pain, daily activities, perspective of life, social participation, mobility, mood, self-reliance, and sleep. Eleven domains were included in the PSPS type 2 outcomes framework. This framework is illustrative of a more holistic perspective and should be used to improve the evaluation of care for PSPS type 2 patients. Further research is needed on the prioritization of relevant outcome domains.

Outcomes measured in studies assessing health systems interventions for type 1 diabetes management: A scoping review

AIMS

Describe the outcomes reported in research on health systems interventions for type 1 diabetes management in comparison to the outcomes proposed by a core outcome set (COS) for this condition, an essential list of outcomes that studies should measure.

METHODS

Systematic search of studies published between 2010 and 2021 reporting health systems interventions directed to improve the management of type 1 diabetes using PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL. Information on the outcomes was extracted and classified according to a COS: self-management, level of clinical engagement, perceived control over diabetes, diabetes-related quality of life, diabetes burden, diabetes ketoacidosis, severe hypoglycemia, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C).

RESULTS

187 studies were included. Most of the studies included either children (n = 82/187) or adults (n = 82/187) living with type 1 diabetes. The most common outcome measured was HbA1C (n = 149/187), followed by self-management (n = 105/187). While the least measured ones were diabetes ketoacidosis (n = 15/187), and clinical engagement (n = 0/187). None of the studies measured all the outcomes recommended in the COS. Additionally, different tools were found to be used in measuring the same outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a description of what researchers are measuring when assessing health systems interventions to improve type 1 diabetes management. In contrast to a COS, it was found that there is a predominance of clinical-based outcomes over patient-reported outcome measures.

Patients' and informal caregivers' perspectives on self-management interventions for type 2 diabetes mellitus outcomes: a mixed-methods overview of 14 years of reviews

BACKGROUND

Self-management interventions (SMIs) are core components of high-quality care in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aimed to identify and summarise the scientific evidence exploring the perspectives of patients with T2DM and their informal caregivers on outcomes of SMIs, and the key themes to enhance T2DM patient-centred care.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods overview of reviews. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO, up to June 2021 for systematic reviews (SRs) exploring the perspectives of adults with T2DM and their informal caregivers, regarding self-management. Two reviewers conducted independently study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. We estimated the degree of overlap across SRs. We performed a qualitative analysis using a thematic synthesis approach.

RESULTS

We identified 54 SRs, corresponding to 939 studies, with a slight overlap. Most SRs (47/54, 87%) were considered high quality. We developed summaries for 22 outcomes and identified six overarching themes: (1) diabetic identity; (2) accessing healthcare; (3) experience of care; (4) engagement with self-management; (5) outcomes awareness; and (6) challenges adhering to self-management. We found important variability in how patients with T2DM and their informal caregivers value critical outcomes influenced by the disease progression and several contextual factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings represent what matters most to patients with T2DM and their informal caregivers regarding outcomes of SMIs. Our results can facilitate the development and evaluation of SMIs, and guide decision-making in diabetes care, including the formulation of decisions and recommendations.

Patient-reported outcomes for people with diabetes: what and how to measure? A narrative review

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are valuable for shared decision making and research. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires used to measure PROs, such as health-related quality of life (HRQL). Although core outcome sets for trials and clinical practice have been developed separately, they, as well as other initiatives, recommend different PROs and PROMs. In research and clinical practice, different PROMs are used (some generic, some disease-specific), which measure many different things. This is a threat to the validity of research and clinical findings in the field of diabetes. In this narrative review, we aim to provide recommendations for the selection of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs for people with diabetes for use in clinical practice and research. Based on a general conceptual framework of PROs, we suggest that relevant PROs to measure in people with diabetes are: disease-specific symptoms (e.g. worries about hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress), general symptoms (e.g. fatigue and depression), functional status, general health perceptions and overall quality of life. Generic PROMs such as the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures could be considered to measure commonly relevant PROs, supplemented with disease-specific PROMs where needed. However, none of the existing diabetes-specific PROM scales has been sufficiently validated, although the Diabetes Symptom Self-Care Inventory (DSSCI) for measuring diabetes-specific symptoms and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) for measuring distress showed sufficient content validity. Standardisation and use of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs can help inform people with diabetes about the expected course of disease and treatment, for shared decision making, to monitor outcomes and to improve healthcare. We recommend further validation studies of diabetes-specific PROMs that have sufficient content validity for measuring disease-specific symptoms and consider generic item banks developed based on item response theory for measuring commonly relevant PROs.

Health system responses for type 1 diabetes: A scoping review

AIMS

The focus of health system interventions for noncommunicable diseases and diabetes focus mainly on primary health care responses. However, existing interventions are not necessarily adapted for the complex management of type 1 diabetes (T1DM). We aimed to identify and describe health system interventions which have been developed to improve the management of T1DM globally.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, and Global Health using OVID for peer-review articles published in either English, Spanish, Portuguese or French in the last 10 years. We classified the intervention strategies according to the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) taxonomy for health system interventions and the World Health Organization (WHO) health system building blocks.

RESULTS

This review identified 159 health system interventions to improve T1DM management. Over half of the studies focused only on children or adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Only a small fraction of the studies were conducted in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs). According to the EPOC taxonomy, the most frequently studied category was delivery arrangement interventions, while implementation strategies and financial arrangements were less frequently studied. Also, governance arrangements domains were not studied. The most common combination of intervention strategies included self-management with either telemedicine, use of information and smart home technologies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to expand potential interventions to other EPOC strategies to assess their potential effect on health outcomes in people with T1DM, as well as to involve more LMIC settings as the impact may be greater in these settings.

Incorporating patient perspectives in the development of a core outcome set for reproductive genetic carrier screening: a sequential systematic review

There is currently no consensus on the key outcomes of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). This has led to a large amount of variability in approaches to research, limiting direct comparison and synthesis of findings. In a recently published systematic review of quantitative studies on RGCS, we found that few studies incorporated patient-reported outcomes. In response to this gap, we conducted a sequential systematic review of qualitative studies to identify outcomes exploring the patient experience of RGCS. In conjunction with the review of quantitative studies, these outcomes will be used to inform the development of a core outcome set. Text excerpts relevant to outcomes, including quotes and themes, were extracted verbatim and deductively coded as outcomes. We conducted a narrative synthesis to group outcomes within domains previously defined in our review of quantitative studies, and identify any new domains that were unique to qualitative studies. Seventy-eight outcomes were derived from qualitative studies and grouped into 19 outcome domains. Three new outcome domains were identified; 'goals of pre- and post-test genetic counselling', 'acceptability of further testing and alternative reproductive options', and 'perceived utility of RGCS'. The identification of outcome domains that were not identified in quantitative studies indicates that outcomes reflecting the patient perspective may be under-represented in the quantitative literature on this topic. Further work should focus on ensuring that outcomes reflect the real world needs and concerns of patients in order to maximise translation of research findings into clinical practice.

Scout - sarcoidosis outcomes taskforce. A systematic review of outcomes to inform the development of a core outcome set for pulmonary sarcoidosis

Background:

Clinical trials evaluating different management strategies for pulmonary sarcoidosis may measure different outcomes. This heterogeneity in outcomes can lead to waste in research due to the inability to compare and combine data. Core outcome sets (COS) have the potential to address this issue and here we describe a systematic review of outcomes as the first step in the development of a COS for pulmonary sarcoidosis research.

Methods:

A search of clinical trial registries for phase II, III and IV trials of pulmonary sarcoidosis was undertaken along with a rapid review of the patient perspective literature. Each study was screened for eligibility and outcomes extracted verbatim from the registry entry or publication then reviewed, grouped and categorised using the COMET taxonomy.

Results:

36 trial registry entries and 6 studies on patients’ perspective of pulmonary sarcoidosis were included reporting 56 and 82 unique outcomes respectively across 23 domains. The most frequently reported outcome domain was “respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal outcomes”. However, the patients’ perspective literature identified outcomes in the “personal circumstances” and “societal/carer burden” domains that were not reported in any of the included trial registrations.

Conclusions:

Using both clinical trial registry data and published literature on patients’ perspective has allowed rapid review of outcomes measured and reported in pulmonary sarcoidosis research. The use of multiple sources has led to the development of a comprehensive list of outcomes that represents the first step in the development of a COS for use in future pulmonary sarcoidosis research.

The standards of obstetrics and gynecology core outcome sets: A scoping review

Background

Core outcome sets (COSs) are the minimum outcomes which should be measured and reported by researchers investigating a specific condition. The definition of standards of COSs vary across different health-related areas. This investigated the characteristics of COSs regarding obstetrics and gynecology (OG) and examined the reports and designs of standards of OG COSs.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conduced on the COMET database on December 20, 2019 to identify systematic reviews on COSs. Two reviewers independently evaluated whether the reported OG COS met the reporting requirements as stipulated in the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) statement checklist and the minimum design recommendations as outlined in the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) checklist.

Results

Forty-four OG COSs related to 26 topics were identified. None of them met all the 25 standards of COS-STAR statement which representing 18 items considered essential for transparent and complete reporting list for all COS studies (range: 6.0-24.0, median: 14.0). The compliance rates to 16 standards of methods and result sections ranged from 27.3%–68.2%. Total COS-STAR compliance items for OG COSs with the prior protocol was significantly higher than without prior protocol (MD = 3.846, 95% CI: 0.835–6.858, P = 0.012). None of the OG COSs met all the 12 criteria in the COS-STAD minimum standards (range: 3.0-11.0, median: 5.0). The compliance rates for all three standards of stakeholders involved and all four standards of the consensus process were lower than 60%.

Conclusions

Methodological and reporting standards of OG COSs should be improved.

The Perspectives of Patients with Chronic Diseases and Their Caregivers on Self-Management Interventions: A Scoping Review of Reviews

BACKGROUND

Self-management (SM) interventions are supportive interventions systematically provided by healthcare professionals, peers, or laypersons to increase the skills and confidence of patients in their ability to manage chronic diseases. We had two objectives: (1) to summarise the preferences and experiences of patients and their caregivers (informal caregivers and healthcare professionals) with SM in four chronic diseases and (2) to identify and describe the relevant outcomes for SM interventions from these perspectives.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods scoping review of reviews. We searched three databases until December 2020 for quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods reviews exploring patients' and caregivers' preferences or experiences with SM in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and heart failure (HF). Quantitative data were narratively synthesised, and qualitative data followed a three-step descriptive thematic synthesis. Identified themes were categorised into outcomes or modifiable factors of SM interventions.

RESULTS

We included 148 reviews covering T2DM (n = 53 [35.8%]), obesity (n = 20 [13.5%]), COPD (n = 32 [21.6%]), HF (n = 38 [25.7%]), and those with more than one disease (n = 5 [3.4%]). We identified 12 main themes. Eight described the process of SM (disease progression, SM behaviours, social support, interaction with healthcare professionals, access to healthcare, costs for patients, culturally defined roles and perceptions, and health knowledge), and four described their experiences with SM interventions (the perceived benefit of the intervention, individualised care, sense of community with peers, and usability of equipment). Most themes and subthemes were categorised as outcomes of SM interventions.

CONCLUSION

The process of SM shaped the perspectives of patients and their caregivers on SM interventions. Their perspectives were influenced by the perceived benefit of the intervention, the sense of community with peers, the intervention's usability, and the level of individualised care. Our findings can inform the selection of patient-important outcomes, decision-making processes, including the formulation of recommendations, and the design and implementation of SM interventions.

A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on stress urinary incontinence in women for the development of a Core Outcome Set: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Given the high variation of perceptions of women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI), qualitative meta-synthesis in this field appears warranted. We aimed to synthesize evidence on women's experiences of SUI by analyzing qualitative data.

METHODS

A literature search of Medline, Embase, Scopus, PsycInfo, and CINAHL databases was performed by a CHORUS Working Group, from inception to August 2020. Qualitative studies on women's perspectives on SUI were included. Thematic analysis was used as a conceptual approach to analyze the data and develop a set of overarching themes. The quality of studies was assessed based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included. Six themes encompassing women's perspectives on SUI emerged: experiencing SUI, awareness of SUI, treatments for SUI, sexuality, communication, and psychosocial effects. The quality appraisal of the studies showed good coherence.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed six overarching themes, of which treatment had the highest prevalence. Assessment of women's perceptions of SUI in the context of a qualitative meta-synthesis may inform policy and practice around this condition, may guide and help set research priorities, and will ideally contribute to the development of a Core Outcome Set for SUI.

The Core Outcome DEvelopment for Carrier Screening (CODECS) study: protocol for development of a core outcome set

Background

Reproductive genetic carrier screening is a type of genetic testing available to those planning a pregnancy, or during their first trimester, to understand their risk of having a child with a severe genetic condition. There is a lack of consensus for ‘what to measure’ in studies on this intervention, leading to heterogeneity in choice of outcomes and methods of measurement. Such outcome heterogeneity has implications for the quality and comparability of these studies and has led to a lack of robust research evidence in the literature to inform policy and decision-making around the offer of this screening. As reproductive genetic carrier screening becomes increasingly accessible within the general population, it is timely to investigate the outcomes of this intervention.

Objectives

The development of a core outcome set is an established methodology to address issues with outcome heterogeneity in research. We aim to develop a core outcome set for reproductive genetic carrier screening to clarify and standardise outcomes for research and practice.

Methods

In accordance with guidance from the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative, this study will consist of five steps: (i) a systematic review of quantitative studies, using narrative synthesis to identify previously reported outcomes, their definitions, and methods of measurement; (ii) a systematic review of qualitative studies using content analysis to identify excerpts related to patient experience and perspectives that can be interpreted as outcomes; (iii) semi-structured focus groups and interviews with patients who have undertaken reproductive genetic carrier screening to identify outcomes of importance to them; (iv) Delphi survey of key stakeholders, including patients, clinicians, and researchers, to refine and prioritise the list of outcomes generated from the previous steps; and (v) a virtual consensus meeting with a purposive sample of key stakeholders to finalise the core outcome set for reporting.

Discussion

This protocol outlines the core outcome set development process and its novel application in the setting of genetic testing. This core outcome set will support the standardisation of outcome reporting in reproductive carrier screening research and contribute to an evolving literature on outcomes to evaluate genetic testing and genetic counselling as health interventions.

COMET core outcome set registration

http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1381.

Involving people with type 2 diabetes in facilitating participation in a cardiovascular screening programme

BACKGROUND

Knowledge is lacking about how to increase uptake among people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) invited to preventive initiatives like cardiovascular screening.

AIM

To explore how to improve participation of people with T2D in cardiovascular screening using patient and public involvement (PPI).

METHODS

Patient and public involvement was included in a qualitative research design. From April to October 2019, we invited 40- to 60-year-old people with T2D (n = 17) to individual consultative meetings, using an interviewing approach. Before the interviews, participants were asked to read a proposed invitation letter to be used in a cardiovascular screening programme. Inductive content analysis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Participants considered cardiovascular screening important and beneficial from both a personal and social perspective. We found that the relational interaction between the person with T2D and the health-care professional was key to participation and that nudging captured through the design of the screening programme and the wording of the invitation letter was requested.

CONCLUSION

In preventive initiatives perceived as meaningful by the invitee, a focus on recruitment is crucial to facilitate participation. This study contributed with knowledge about how to promote participation by involving health-care professionals in recruitment initiatives and through nudging. This knowledge may assist researchers, policymakers and ethicists' understanding and assessment of the ethical appropriateness and public acceptability of nudging in cardiovascular screening.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

By consulting 17 people with T2D, we are now in a position to suggest how a screening initiative should be altered because tools to improve uptake have been identified.

Long-term health-related quality of life and burden of disease after intensive care: development of a patient-reported outcome measure

BACKGROUND

ICU survivorship includes a diverse burden of disease. Current questionnaires used for collecting information about health-related problems and their relation to quality of life lack detailed questions in several areas relevant to ICU survivors. Our aim was to construct a provisional questionnaire on health-related issues based on interviews with ICU survivors and to test if this questionnaire was able to show differences between ICU survivors and a control group.

METHODS

Thirty-two ICU survivors were identified at a post-ICU clinic and interviewed at least six months after ICU discharge. Using an established qualitative methodology from oncology, all dysfunctions and disabilities were extracted, rephrased as questions and compiled into a provisional questionnaire. In a second part, this questionnaire was tested on ICU survivors and controls. Inclusion criteria for the ICU survivors were ICU stay at least 72 h with ICU discharge six months to three years prior to the study. A non-ICU-treated control group was obtained from the Swedish Population Register, matched for age and sex. Eligible participants received an invitation letter and were contacted by phone. If willing to participate, they were sent the questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were applied.

RESULTS

Analysis of the interviews yielded 238 questions in 13 domains: cognition, fatigue, physical health, pain, psychological health, activities of daily living, sleep, appetite and alcohol, sexual health, sensory functions, gastrointestinal functions, urinary functions and work life. In the second part, 395 of 518 ICU survivors and 197 of 231 controls returned a completed questionnaire, the response rates being 76.2% and 85.3%, respectively. The two groups differed significantly in 13 of 22 comorbidities. ICU survivors differed in a majority of questions (p ≤ 0.05) distributed over all 13 domains compared with controls.

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes the development of a provisional questionnaire to identify health-related quality of life issues and long-term burden of disease after intensive care. The questionnaire was answered by 395 ICU survivors. The questionnaire could identify that they experience severe difficulties in a wide range of domains compared with a control group. Trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov Ref# NCT02767180.

Facilitating participation in cardiovascular preventive initiatives among people with diabetes: a qualitative study

Background

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The DIAbetic CArdioVAscular Screening and intervention trial (DIACAVAS) was designed to clarify whether advanced imaging for subclinical atherosclerosis combined with medical treatment is an effective strategy to develop individualised treatment algorithms for Danish men and women with T2D aged 40–60. But in the DIACAVAS pilot study, the uptake was only 41%. Consequently, we explored how people experienced living with T2D to understand how to improve the uptake in initiatives targeting the prevention of CVD.

Methods

We used semi-structured interviews to obtain information on how the respondents experienced having T2D. For supplementary information, we used structured interviews on e.g. socioeconomic factors. From April to October 2019, 17 participants aged 40–60 years were recruited from general practices and diabetes outpatient clinics in Denmark. Several levels of analysis were involved consistent with inductive content analysis.

Results

The participants’ experiences of living with T2D fell along two continuums, from an emotional to a cognitive expression and from reactive to proactive disease management. This led to identification of four archetypal characteristics: (I) powerlessness, (II) empowerment, (III) health literacy, and (IV) self-efficacy. These characteristics indicated the importance of using different approaches to facilitate participation in cardiovascular preventive initiatives. Additionally, findings inspired us to develop a model for facilitating participation in future preventive initiatives.

Conclusion

Encouraging people with T2D to participate in cardiovascular preventive initiatives may necessitate a tailored invitation strategy. We propose a model for an invitational process that takes into consideration invitees’ characteristics, including powerlessness, empowerment, health literacy and self-efficacy. This model may enhance participation in such initiatives. However, participation is a general concern, not only in relation to cardiovascular prevention. Our proposed model may be applicable in preventive services for people with T2D in general.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-10172-6.

Patients' and parents' views about lower limb orthopaedic surgery for ambulant children and young people with cerebral palsy: a qualitative evidence synthesis

PURPOSE

The article identifies the aspects of health and outcomes that are considered important from the perspective of ambulatory children with cerebral palsy (CP) and their parents regarding lower limb orthopaedic surgery and explores how they experience surgical interventions.

METHODS

Four databases (Embase, MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL and PsycINFO) were searched from inception to 11 April 2020. Studies were included if they: 1) they involved children or young adults diagnosed with ambulant CP or their family, 2) participants had experience with lower limb orthopaedic surgery and 3) studies employed qualitative research methods. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme was used to appraise identified studies. The 'Best-fit framework' synthesis approach was used by applying the International Classification of Functioning-Children and Youth (ICF-CY) linking rules and thematic synthesis. The review process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

Six studies were included. Four themes were generated which were linked to the ICF-CY framework: Body function and structure, Activity and participation, Environmental factors, Personal factors, as well as non-ICF-CY themes including Emotional well-being and Goal setting. Important surgical outcomes identified were pain, fatigue, movement-related function, mobility, walking ability, community life, emotional well-being, and adequate provision of public and health services.

CONCLUSION

These findings are important for understanding patient-centred outcomes in lower limb ortho-paedics surgery and providing focus for future interventional studies aimed at improving outcomes of importance to children with CP. These findings highlight the importance of long-term support to help people negotiate the challenge of surgical regimes and to achieve good outcomes after orthopaedic surgery. The outcomes identified will contribute to the development of a core outcome set in this field.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Ensuring that the outcome domains proposed for use in burns research are relevant to adult burn patients: a systematic review of qualitative research evidence

Background

There have been several attempts to define core outcome domains for use in research focused on adult burns. Some have been based in expert opinion, whilst others have used primary qualitative research to understand patients' perspectives on outcomes. To date there has not been a systematic review of qualitative research in burns to identify a comprehensive list of patient-centred outcome domains. We therefore conducted a systematic review of qualitative research studies in adult burns.

Methods

We searched multiple databases for English-language, peer-reviewed, qualitative research papers. We used search strategies devised using the SPIDER tool for qualitative synthesis. Our review utilized an iterative three-step approach: (1) outcome-focused coding; (2) development of descriptive accounts of outcome-relevant issues; and (3) revisiting studies and the broader theoretical literature in order to frame the review findings.

Results

Forty-one articles were included. We categorized papers according to their primary focus. The category with the most papers was adaptation to life following burn injury (n = 13). We defined 19 outcome domains across the 41 articles: (1) sense of self; (2) emotional and psychological morbidity; (3) sensory; (4) scarring and scar characteristics; (5) impact on relationships; (6) mobility and range of joint motion; (7) work; (8) activities of daily living and self-care; (9) treatment burden; (10) engagement in activities; (11) wound healing and infection; (12) other physical manifestations; (13) financial impact; (14) impact on spouses and family members; (15) analgesia and side effects; (16) cognitive skills; (17) length of hospital stay; (18) access to healthcare; and (19) speech and communication. We suggest that sense of self is a core concern for patients that, to date, has not been clearly conceptualized in the burns outcome domain literature.

Conclusions

This outcome domain framework identifies domains that are not covered in previous attempts to outline core outcome domains for adult burn research. It does so with reference to existing theoretical perspectives from the sociology and psychology of medicine. We propose that this framework can be used as a basis to ensure that outcome assessment is patient-centred. Sense of self requires further consideration as a core outcome domain.

Comparing the Preferences of Patients and the General Public for Treatment Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Healthcare treatments and interventions are traditionally evaluated from the societal perspective, but a more patient-centric perspective has been proposed in recent years. We sought to compare preferences of patients and the general public for treatment outcomes of type 2 diabetes using both best-worst scaling (BWS) and rating approaches.

METHODS

A survey evaluating the treatment priorities for type 2 diabetes was conducted in the United States. Members of the general public and patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited from a nationally sampled panel. Participants indicated the importance of seven potential treatment outcomes (hypoglycemic events, glycated hemoglobin [A1c], weight loss, mental health, functioning, glycemic stability, and cardiovascular health) using (1) BWS case 1 and (2) a rating task. Preference differences from BWS prioritizations were explored using mixed logistic regression (BWS preference weights were probability re-scaled so that the weightings of the seven items collectively summed to 100). The consistency of scale between samples was explored using heteroskedastic conditional logistic regression of BWS data. Spearman rank correlation was used to compare standardized BWS preference weights and rating scores for each group. Both groups evaluated the BWS and rating activities using debriefing questions.

RESULTS

The public and patient samples included 314 and 313 respondents, respectively. The public was on average 16 years younger than patients (48 vs 64 years, P < 0.001). In BWS, patients and the public both ranked A1c, glycemic stability, and cardiovascular health within their top three outcomes. Patients valued the outcome A1c most highly and found it twice as important as did the public (41.0 vs 20.2, P < 0.001). The public valued cardiovascular health most highly, and found it to be twice as important than did patients (31.3 vs 17.4, P < 0.001). Patients were more consistent in their preferences than the public (λ = 1.66, P = 0.01). Preferences elicited using BWS and rating approaches were highly correlated for both patients (ρ = 0.96) and the public (ρ = 0.92). Patients were more likely than the public to endorse the BWS as easy to answer (P < 0.001), easy to understand (P < 0.001), consistent with preferences (P < 0.001), and relevant (P < 0.001). Both patients and the public found the rating activity easier to answer and understand, and more consistent with their preferences, than the BWS (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We provide some of the first evidence demonstrating a difference in patient and public treatment priorities for diabetes. That patients were more consistent in their preferences than the public and found the BWS and Likert rating instruments more relevant suggests that patient priorities may be more appropriate than those of the general public in some medical decision-making contexts.

Adding value to core outcome set development using multimethod systematic reviews

Trials evaluating the same interventions rarely measure or report identical outcomes. This limits the possibility of aggregating effect sizes across studies to generate high-quality evidence through systematic reviews and meta-analyses. To address this problem, core outcome sets (COS) establish agreed sets of outcomes to be used in all future trials. When developing COS, potential outcome domains are identified by systematically reviewing the outcomes of trials, and increasingly, through primary qualitative research exploring the experiences of key stakeholders, with relevant outcome domains subsequently determined through transdisciplinary consensus development. However, the primary qualitative component can be time consuming with unclear impact. We aimed to examine the potential added value of a qualitative systematic review alongside a quantitative systematic review of trial outcomes to inform COS development in neonatal care using case analysis methods. We compared the methods and findings of a scoping review of neonatal trial outcomes and a scoping review of qualitative research on parents', patients', and professional caregivers' perspectives of neonatal care. Together, these identified a wider range and greater depth of health and social outcome domains, some unique to each review, which were incorporated into the subsequent Delphi process and informed the final set of core outcome domains. Qualitative scoping reviews of participant perspectives research, used in conjunction with quantitative scoping reviews of trials, could identify more outcome domains for consideration and could provide greater depth of understanding to inform stakeholder group discussion in COS development. This is an innovation in the application of research synthesis methods.

Selecting Core Outcomes for Randomised Effectiveness trials In Type 2 diabetes (SCORE-IT): a patient and healthcare professional consensus on a core outcome set for type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVES

Heterogeneity in outcomes measured across trials of glucose-lowering interventions for people with type 2 diabetes impacts on the ability to compare findings and may mean that the results have little importance to healthcare professionals and the patients that they care for. The SCORE-IT study (Selecting Core Outcomes for Randomised Effectiveness trials In Type 2 diabetes) has addressed this issue by establishing consensus on the most important outcomes for non-surgical interventions for hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A comprehensive list of outcomes was developed from registered clinical trials, online patient resources, qualitative literature and long-term studies in the field. This list was then scored in a two-round online Delphi survey completed by healthcare professionals, people with type 2 diabetes, researchers in the field and healthcare policymakers. The results of this online Delphi were discussed and ratified at a face-to-face consensus meeting.

RESULTS

173 people completed both rounds of the online survey (116 people with type 2 diabetes, 37 healthcare professionals, 14 researchers and 6 policymakers), 20 of these attended the consensus meeting (13 people with type 2 diabetes and 7 healthcare professionals). Consensus was reached on 18 core outcomes across five domains, which include outcomes related to diabetes care, quality of life and long-term diabetes-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the core outcome set in future trials will ensure that outcomes of importance to all stakeholders are measured and reported, enhancing the relevance of trial findings and facilitating the comparison of results across trials.