Patient participation in Delphi surveys to develop core outcome sets: systematic review

Study found increasing use of core outcome sets in Cochrane systematic reviews and identified facilitators and barriers

OBJECTIVES

In 2019, only 7% of Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) cited a core outcome set (COS) in relation to choosing outcomes, even though a relevant COS existed but was not mentioned (or cited) for a further 29% of SRs. Our objectives for the current work were to (1) examine the extent to which authors are currently considering COS to inform outcome choice in Cochrane protocols and completed SRs, and (2) understand author facilitators and barriers to using COS.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We examined all completed Cochrane SRs published in the last 3 months of 2022 and all Cochrane protocols published in 2022 for the extent to which they: (a) cited a COS, (b) searched for COS, (c) used outcomes from existing COS, and (d) reported outcome inconsistency among included studies and/or noted the need for COS. One investigator extracted information; a second extractor verified all information, discussing discrepancies to achieve consensus. We then conducted an online survey of authors of the included SRs to assess awareness of COS and identify facilitators and barriers to using COS to inform outcome choice.

RESULTS

Objective 1: We included 294 SRs of interventions (84 completed SRs and 210 published SR protocols), of which 13% cited specific COS and 5% did not cite but mentioned searching for COS. A median of 83% of core outcomes from cited COS (interquartile range [IQR] 57%-100%) were included in the corresponding SR. We identified a relevant COS for 39% of SRs that did not cite a COS. A median of 50% of core outcomes from noncited COS (IQR 35%-72%) were included in the corresponding SR. Objective 2: Authors of 236 (80%) of the 294 eligible SRs completed our survey. Seventy-seven percent of authors noted being aware of COS before the survey. Fifty-five percent of authors who did not cite COS but were aware of them reported searching for a COS. The most reported facilitators of using COS were author awareness of the existence of COS (59%), author positive perceptions of COS (52%), and recommendation in the Cochrane Handbook regarding COS use (48%). The most reported barriers related to matching of the scope of the COS and the SR: the COS target population was too narrow/broad relative to the SR population (29%) or the COS target intervention was too narrow/broad relative to the SR intervention (21%). Most authors (87%) mentioned that they would consider incorporating missing core outcomes in the SR/update.

CONCLUSION

Since 2019, there is increasing consideration and awareness of COS when choosing outcomes for Cochrane SRs of interventions, but uptake remains low and can be improved further. Use of COS in SRs is important to improve outcome standardization, reduce research waste, and improve evidence syntheses of the relevant effects of interventions across health research.

Role matters in understanding 'quality' in palliative care: a qualitative analysis of patient, caregiver and practitioner perspectives

OBJECTIVES

To compare the discussions from two panels on the concept of palliative care quality for patients with advanced cancer, exploring the priorities reflected in each group's perspectives.

DESIGN

We convened two RAND-UCLA appropriateness panel discussions on palliative care quality in advanced cancer. Discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Panel transcripts were analysed thematically using a matrix approach to examine perceptions and experiences of quality.

SETTING

Discussions were framed within the context of advanced cancer care and palliative care.

PARTICIPANTS

The patient-caregiver panel had 9 patients with current or a history of cancer and caregivers, and the practitioner panel had 10 expert practitioners representing fields of oncology, primary care, social work, palliative care, nursing, pain management and ethics.

RESULTS

Our analysis identified three thematic categories for understanding quality common across both groups and nine subthemes within those categories. At the highest level, quality was conceived as: (1) the patient and caregiver experience of care, (2) technical competence and (3) the structure of health system. Among the subthemes, four were present in only one of the two group's discussions: 'purpose and action' was specific to the patient-caregiver panel, whereas 'adhering to best medical practice', 'mitigating unintended consequences and side effects', and 'health system resources and costs' were specific to the practitioner panel.

CONCLUSIONS

While both panels aligned on the three key domains of quality, the particular dimensions through which they perceived quality varied in relation to their experience and role as a professional provider of care versus recipient of healthcare services. These differences suggest the importance of adopting a collaborative approach to quality measurement and improvement so that the values of all interested parties are represented in improvement efforts.

Current status and implementation strategies of patient education in core outcome set development

OBJECTIVE

Patient participation is essential for Core Outcome Set (COS) development studies. Patient education during participation may help patients better express their views in COS studies. This study aimed to investigate the current status of patient participation and the specified educational information in COS studies.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of COS development studies. Information on patient participation in COS research, and especially details of patient education, was analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 146 COS development studies were included in this review. Of these, 125 studies (85.6%) mentioned patient participation. Most studies did not provide explicit information on patient participation. Some studies mentioned recruiting patients, but ultimately, none of them responded. Six studies reported conducting patient education through workshops, creating patient forums, or providing videos and slides. However, these studies did not provide details on education. Twenty-three studies used the plain language to explain patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

COS developers are increasingly focusing on patient participation. However, only a few COS studies have explicitly reported conducting measures related to patient education. Further patient education is necessary when they participate in the development of a new Core Outcome Set.

PRACTICE IMPLICATION

This article provides implementation strategies related to patient education for future COS development studies.

Involving patients and the public In sTatistIcal Analysis pLans (INITIAL): A delphi survey

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in trials aims to enhance research by improving its relevance and transparency. Planning for statistical analysis begins at the design stage of a trial within the protocol and is refined and detailed in a Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP). While PPI is common in design and protocol development it is less common within SAPs. This study aimed to reach consensus on the most important and relevant statistical analysis items within an SAP to involve patients and the public.

METHODS

We developed a UK-based, two-round Delphi survey through an iterative consultation with public partners, statisticians, and trialists. The consultation process started with 55 items from international guidance for statistical analysis plans. We aimed to recruit at least 20 participants per key stakeholder group for inclusion in the final analysis of the Delphi survey. Participants were asked to vote on each item using a Likert scale from 1 to 9, where a rating of 1 to 3 was labelled as having 'limited importance'; 4 to 6 as 'important but not critical' and 7 to 9 as 'critical' to involve patients and the public. Results from the second round determined consensus on critical items for PPI.

RESULTS

The consultation exercise led to the inclusion of 15 statistical items in the Delphi survey. We recruited 179 participants, of whom 72% (129: 36 statisticians, 29 patients or public partners, 25 clinical researchers or methodologists, 27 trial managers, and 12 PPI coordinators) completed both rounds. Participants were on average 48 years old, 60% were female, 84% were White, 64% were based in England and 84% had at least five years' experience in trials. Four items reached consensus regarding critical importance for patient and public involvement: presentation of results to trial participants; summary and presentation of harms; interpretation and presentation of findings in an academic setting; factors impacting how well a treatment works. No consensus was reached for the remaining 11 items. In general, the results were consistent across stakeholder groups.

DISCUSSION

We identified four critical items to involve patients and the public in statistical analysis plans. The remaining 11 items did not reach consensus and need to be considered in a case-by-case basis with most responders considering patient and public involvement important (but not critical). Our research provides a platform to enable focused future efforts to improve patient and public involvement in trials and enhance the relevance of statistical analyses to patients and the public.

National priority setting partnership using a Delphi consensus process to develop neonatal research questions suitable for practice-changing randomised trials in the UK

BACKGROUND

The provision of neonatal care is variable and commonly lacks adequate evidence base; strategic development of methodologically robust clinical trials is needed to improve outcomes and maximise research resources. Historically, neonatal research topics have been selected by researchers; prioritisation processes involving wider stakeholder groups have generally identified research themes rather than specific questions amenable to interventional trials.

OBJECTIVE

To involve stakeholders including parents, healthcare professionals and researchers to identify and prioritise research questions suitable for answering in neonatal interventional trials in the UK.

DESIGN

Research questions were submitted by stakeholders in population, intervention, comparison, outcome format through an online platform. Questions were reviewed by a representative steering group; duplicates and previously answered questions were removed. Eligible questions were entered into a three-round online Delphi survey for prioritisation by all stakeholder groups.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and eight respondents submitted research questions for consideration; 144 participants completed round one of the Delphi survey, 106 completed all three rounds.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixty-five research questions were submitted and after steering group review, 186 entered into the Delphi survey. The top five ranked research questions related to breast milk fortification, intact cord resuscitation, timing of surgical intervention in necrotising enterocolitis, therapeutic hypothermia for mild hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy and non-invasive respiratory support.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified and prioritised research questions suitable for practice-changing interventional trials in neonatal medicine in the UK at the present time. Trials targeting these uncertainties have potential to reduce research waste and improve neonatal care.

A systematic review of studies reporting the development of core outcome sets for use in routine care

OBJECTIVES

Core outcome sets (COS) represent the minimum health outcomes to be measured for a given health condition. Interest is growing in using COS within routine care to support delivery of patient-focused care. This review aims to systematically map COS developed for routine care to understand their scope, stakeholder involvement, and development methods.

METHODS

Medline (Ovid), Scopus, and Web of Science Core collection were searched for studies reporting development of COS for routine care. Data on scope, methods, and stakeholder groups were analyzed in subgroups defined by setting.

RESULTS

Screening 25,301 records identified 262 COS: 164 for routine care only and 98 for routine care and research. Nearly half of the COS (112/254, 44%) were developed with patients, alongside input from experts in registries, insurance, legal, outcomes measurement, and performance management. Research publications were often searched to generate an initial list of outcomes (115/198, 58%) with few searching routine health records (47/198, 24%).

CONCLUSION

An increasing number of COS is being developed for routine care. Although involvement of patient stakeholders has increased in recent years, further improvements are needed. Methodology and scope are broadly similar to COS for research but implementation of the final set is a greater consideration during development.

The development of a core outcome set for clinical effectiveness studies of bordered foam dressings in the treatment of complex wounds

AIM

The aim of this project was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for clinical effectiveness studies of bordered foam dressings in the treatment of complex wounds.

METHODS

The research project followed the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative and consisted of two phases. The first phase prepared the background and process, while the second phase had three steps: outcome list generation via systematic review and qualitative study, Delphi consensus study, and consensus meeting. The study has been registered in the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database.

RESULTS

The systematic review resulted in 82 outcomes and 20 additional outcomes were obtained during the interviews. After refinement, 111 panellists from 23 countries rated a list of 51 outcomes. In the following consensus meeting, six outcomes were prioritized to be included in the core outcome set. After the consensus meeting, a patient-reported outcome was added to the core outcome set.

CONCLUSION

The COS for evaluating the effectiveness of bordered foam dressings in treating complex wounds includes 7 outcomes: "ability to stay in place", "leakage", "pain", "dressing related periwound skin changes", "change in wound size over time", and "overall satisfaction". These identified outcomes are correlated with contemporary bioengineering testing and evaluation methods for dressing performance, which underpins the need for a close multidisciplinary collaboration to advance the field of wound dressings. The outcome 'overall satisfaction' reflects the impact of complex wounds and their treatment on a patient's daily life. The use of these outcomes is recommended to improve data synthesis and promote evidence-based practice. Future developments in COS development involve creating measurement instruments and relevant endpoints for these outcomes.

Establishing a Core Domain Set for early-phase clinical trials of electrical stimulation interventions for tinnitus in adults: protocol for an online Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Tinnitus is the awareness of a sound in the ear or head in the absence of an external source. It affects around 10-15% of people and current treatment options are limited. Experimental treatments include various forms of electrical stimulation of the brain. Currently, there is no consensus on the outcomes that should be measured when investigating the efficacy of this type of intervention for tinnitus. This study seeks to address this by establishing a Core Domain Set: a common standard of what specific tinnitus-related complaints are critical and important to assess in all clinical trials of electrical stimulation-based interventions for tinnitus.

METHODS

A two-round online survey will be conducted, followed by a stakeholder consensus meeting to identify a Core Domain Set. Participants will belong to one of two stakeholder groups: healthcare users with lived experience of tinnitus, and professionals with relevant clinical, commercial, or research experience.

DISCUSSION

This study will establish a Core Domain Set for the evaluation of electrical stimulation-based interventions for tinnitus via an e-Delphi study. The resulting Core Domain Set will act as a minimum standard for reporting in future clinical trials of electrical stimulation interventions for tinnitus. Standardisation will facilitate comparability of research findings.

Information needs and research priorities in long-term survivorship of breast cancer: Patients and health professionals' perspectives

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this work is to identify unmet information needs of long-term-survivors of breast cancer (BC) and future research needs from the perspectives of patients and health care professionals.

METHODS

Two online Delphi surveys were conducted. Participants in Survey 1 were patients. Participants in Survey 2 were health care professionals from both primary and secondary care involved in BC care. Both surveys included three successive rounds. The first round aimed to identify research and information needs; the second round aimed to rank the relative importance of those needs; the third round aimed to find consensus.

RESULTS

The most important information needs were self-management recommendations of common health problems after treatment and complications of breast reconstruction after 5 years. The most important research priorities were related to interventions and tools to increase information provision by professionals about certain tests, diet, and coordinated action between primary and specialised care during follow-up, and indications and safety issues of pregnancy in survivors.

CONCLUSIONS

Two fundamental ideas were identified: (1) Patients request information about self-management common health problems after treatment and breast reconstruction complications. (2) Health care professionals emphasise the need for a standardised approach based on protocols, recommendations, and coordinated actions in the provision of information.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Given the increasing number of BC survivors, it is essential to identify information and research needs to improve their care and health outcomes.

What adults with ADHD want to know: A Delphi consensus study on the psychoeducational needs of experts by experience

Introduction

A lack of knowledge about attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can contribute to feelings of distress and difficulty in seeking and accepting an ADHD diagnosis. The present study uses a Delphi consensus design to investigate the psychoeducational needs of adults with ADHD and the information about ADHD they would like included in digital health interventions for adults with ADHD. Inclusion of perspectives of service users in developing such interventions ensures that they are evidence based and addresses the risks of engagement barriers.

Methods

The expert panel consisted of 43 adults with ADHD (age range: 23–67 years). Panel members were asked to rate the importance of the proposed topics and provide additional suggestions. Suggested topics and topics that did not achieve consensus were included for ranking in the second round.

Results

Interquartile ratings were used to determine consensus. A high consensus was achieved in both rounds, with an agreement on 94% of topics in the first round and 98% in the second round. Most topics were rated as important or essential.

Conclusions

The findings highlighted that adults with ADHD want to learn about many different aspects of ADHD and the importance of considering their perspectives when developing psychosocial interventions. Findings can be applied when creating psychoeducational content for adult ADHD.

Patient or Public Contribution

Adults with ADHD were recruited to the Delphi panel to use an experts‐by‐experience approach. In doing so, we are engaging service users in the development of a psychoeducational smartphone app. The evaluation of the app will involve interviews with app users. Additionally, the present study was developed and conducted with ADHD Ireland, a charity based in Ireland that advocates for people with ADHD.