A core outcomes set for clinical trials of interventions for young adults with type 1 diabetes: an international, multi-perspective Delphi consensus study

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Studies Assessing Interventions for Diabetes-Related Foot Ulceration

OBJECTIVE

Diabetes affects 537 million people globally, with 34% expected to develop foot ulceration in their lifetime. Diabetes-related foot ulceration causes strain on health care systems worldwide, necessitating provision of high-quality evidence to guide their management. Given heterogeneity of reported outcomes, a core outcome set (COS) was developed to standardize outcome measures in studies assessing treatments for diabetes-related foot ulceration.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The COS was developed using Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) methodology. A systematic review and patient interviews generated a long list of outcomes that were rated by patients and experts using a nine-point Likert scale (from 1 [not important] to 9 [critical]) in the first round of the Delphi survey. Based on predefined criteria, outcomes without consensus were reprioritized in a second Delphi round. Critical outcomes and those without consensus after two Delphi rounds were discussed in the consensus meeting where the COS was ratified.

RESULTS

The systematic review and patient interviews generated 103 candidate outcomes. The two consecutive Delphi rounds were completed by 336 and 176 respondents, resulting in an overall second round response rate of 52%. Of 37 outcomes discussed in the consensus meeting (22 critical and 15 without consensus after the second round), 8 formed the COS: wound healing, time to healing, new/recurrent ulceration, infection, major amputation, minor amputation, health-related quality of life, and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed COS for studies assessing treatments for diabetes-related foot ulceration was developed using COMET methodology. Its adoption by the research community will facilitate assessment of comparative effectiveness of current and evolving interventions.

Intervention to promote adolescents' communication and engagement in diabetes clinic encounters: A pilot randomized controlled trial

AIM

To conduct a pilot randomized trial of an intervention to improve adolescent question-asking and provider education during paediatric diabetes visits.

METHODS

Adolescents aged 11 to 17 with type 1 diabetes and their parents were enrolled from two urban tertiary paediatric clinics. Adolescents were randomised to the intervention group or control group. Adolescent consultations were audio-recorded, their HbA1c level was recorded, and they completed surveys after three clinic appointments. The intervention group completed a question prompt list and watched a video on a tablet with their parents before meeting their doctor and completed a short evaluation after each visit.

RESULTS

Six consultant endocrinologists and ninety-nine adolescents and their parents participated. The intervention increased adolescents' question asking and provider education in diabetes encounters. Total patient question-asking across the 3 consultations and a higher baseline HbA1c at time one was significantly associated with HbA1c at time three.

CONCLUSIONS

Question prompt lists and an educational video are useful tools to increase adolescents' question-asking and communication between adolescents and their providers.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Interventions that encourage adolescents' question-asking in healthcare encounters may lead to more meaningful providers-adolescents' communication and tailored education. Interventions to improve professionals' listening, communication and educational skills are also required.

Person-reported outcomes in registered randomised diabetes trials: A mapping review of constructs

AIM

Recently, efforts have been made to use and report person-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Here, we aim to (1) assess the status of inclusion of PROs in registered RCTs over 5 years in people with type 1 or 2 diabetes, and (2) map the PRO measures (PROMs) onto predefined domains.

METHODS

The largest trial registries (Clinicatrials.gov, International Clinical Trial Platform and ISRCTN) were systematically searched for RCTs in people with type 1 and/or type 2 diabetes of all ages between 2018 and 2023. Coding of PROs comprised: (1) PRO measure(s) included yes or no; if yes: (2) PRO(s) as primary outcome yes or no; and (3) mapping PROMs onto predefined PRO domains and per type of intervention.

RESULTS

N = 1543 trials met our inclusion criteria, of which n = 673 (44%) included PROs, assessed by 545 different measures. Twenty per cent of drug trials (n = 112) and 71% of behavioural interventions (n = 405) included PROs. In 149 trials (9.6%), a PRO was the primary outcome. The psychological functioning domain was most often assessed across all trials (21.6%), specifically in behavioural (44.8%) and medical device interventions (29.7%). In drug trials, the physical functioning and functional health domain was most included (9%). Across all trials, the social and family functioning domain was least assessed (3%).

CONCLUSIONS

We noticed an increase in the inclusion of PROs in diabetes RCTs. However, PROs are rarely included as primary outcomes in the majority of studies, particularly in drug trials. The heterogeneity of PROMs used in RCTs underscores the need for standardisation of PROs.

Standardising personalised diabetes care across European health settings: A person-centred outcome set agreed in a multinational Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

Standardised person-reported outcomes (PRO) data can contextualise clinical outcomes enabling precision diabetes monitoring and care. Comprehensive outcome sets can guide this process, but their implementation in routine diabetes care has remained challenging and unsuccessful at international level. We aimed to address this by developing a person-centred outcome set for Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, using a methodology with prospects for increased implementability and sustainability in international health settings.

METHODS

We used a three-round questionnaire-based Delphi study to reach consensus on the outcome set. We invited key stakeholders from 19 countries via purposive snowball sampling, namely people with diabetes (N = 94), healthcare professionals (N = 65), industry (N = 22) and health authorities (N = 3), to vote on the relevance and measurement frequency of 64 previously identified clinical and person-reported outcomes. Subsequent consensus meetings concluded the study.

RESULTS

The list of preliminary outcomes was shortlisted via the consensus process to 46 outcomes (27 clinical outcomes and 19 PROs). Two main collection times were recommended: (1) linked to a medical visit (e.g. diabetes-specific well-being, symptoms and psychological health) and (2) annually (e.g. clinical data, general well-being and diabetes self management-related outcomes).

CONCLUSIONS

PROs are often considered in a non-standardised way in routine diabetes care. We propose a person-centred outcome set for diabetes, specifically considering psychosocial and behavioural aspects, which was agreed by four international key stakeholder groups. It guides standardised collection of meaningful outcomes at scale, supporting individual and population level healthcare decision making. It will be implemented and tested in Europe as part of the H2O project.

Young Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Young adults experience multiple developmental transitions across social, educational, vocational, residential, and financial life domains. These transitions are potential competing priorities to managing a chronic condition such as type 1 diabetes and can contribute to poor psychosocial and medical outcomes. In this narrative review, we describe population outcomes of young adult populations and the unique considerations associated with managing type 1 diabetes in young adulthood. We provide an overview of the current evidence-based strategies to improve care for young adults with type 1 diabetes and recommendations for future directions in the field.

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.

Effect of self-help interventions on psychological, glycemic, and behavioral outcomes in patients with diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Self-help interventions are beneficial for patients with diabetes; however, related studies have reported conflicting results. To date, no review has examined the effect of self-help interventions on diabetes outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the effects of self-help interventions on psychological, glycemic, and behavioral outcomes in patients with diabetes.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Five databases-PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov-were searched from 1996, 1937, 1947, 1887, and 2000, respectively, to 2 June 2023. Studies that employed a randomized controlled trial design, enrolled adults with diabetes, implemented a self-help intervention as the main or an additional intervention, and reported the outcomes of interest were included. Studies providing self-help interventions to patients with gestational diabetes or pregnant women were excluded. The primary outcomes were diabetes distress, depression, and anxiety, and the secondary outcomes were glycemic and behavioral outcomes (self-management behavior, self-efficacy, and quality of life). Hedges' g and the associated 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model to obtain the pooled estimates of short-, mid-, and long-term effects of self-help interventions. Heterogeneity was explored using I2 and Q statistics, and moderator analysis was performed to identify the sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Of 17 eligible studies, 16 provided data for meta-analysis. We included 3083 patients with diabetes; the majority were women (61.95 %), and their average age was 55.13 years. Self-help interventions exerted significant short-term effects on diabetes distress (g = -0.363; 95 % CI = -0.554, -0.173), depression (g = -0.465; 95 % CI = -0.773, -0.156), anxiety (g = -0.295; 95 % CI = -0.523, -0.068), glycosylated hemoglobin level (g = -0.497; 95 % CI = -0.791, -0.167), self-efficacy (g = 0.629; 95 % CI = 0.060, 1.197), and quality of life (g = 0.413; 95 % CI = 0.104, 0.721; g = 0.182; 95 % CI = 0.031, 0.333; and g = 0.469; 95 % CI = 0.156, 0.783 for overall, physical, and mental domains, respectively). We also noted significant mid-term effects of self-help interventions on diabetes distress (g = -0.195; 95 % CI = -0.374, -0.016), self-management behavior (g = 0.305; 95 % CI = 0.155, 0.454), and overall quality of life (g = 0.562; 95 % CI = 0.315, 0.810). The certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low certainty for the measured outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-help interventions may have some positive effects on diabetes distress, anxiety, self-management behavior, and quality of life.

REGISTRATION

This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022329905).

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

This meta-analysis demonstrated that self-help interventions might improve psychological and behavioral outcomes in patients with diabetes.

Assessing the uptake of the type 1 diabetes core outcome set in randomized controlled trials: A Cross-Sectional study

AIMS

This study analyzed uptake of the core outcome set (COS) for type 1 diabetes (T1D) and trends in its use before and after its development in December 2017.

METHODS

On June 26, 2023, ClinicalTrials.gov was systematically searched for T1D randomized controlled trials. The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database provided a COS of eight key outcomes for analysis. Included trials were analyzed for COS uptake before and after its release in December 2017 in a masked, duplicate fashion by independent reviewers. We also calculated the proportion of trials that measured the complete COS and assessed the most frequently reported COS outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 3,792 originally screened articles, 144 RCTs were included in the final sample. Following COS publication, its use steadily decreased. Within the COS, HbA1c and severe hypoglycemia were most frequently implemented as endpoints; other recommended outcomes were rarely used in the published trials.

CONCLUSION

Despite the 2017 T1D COS publication, use has decreased over time. This inconsistency negatively influences evidence-based practices and care. Educating researchers on COS and promoting uptake is crucial. Wider COS adoption in T1D trials could enhance clinical research overall. Further study of barriers and facilitators influencing uptake is essential to support consistent use and reporting.

Which diabetes specific patient reported outcomes should be measured in routine care? A systematic review to inform a core outcome set for adults with Type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus: The European Health Outcomes Observatory (H2O) programme

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to identify candidate patient reported outcomes with potential to inform individual patient care and service development for inclusion in a digital outcome set to be collected in routine care, as part of an international project to enhance care outcomes for people with diabetes.

METHODS

PubMed, COSMIN and COMET databases were searched. Published studies were included if they recommended patient reported outcomes that were clinically useful and/or important to people with diabetes. To aid selection decisions, recommended outcomes were considered in terms of the evidence endorsing them and their importance to people with diabetes.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies recommending 53 diabetes specific outcomes, and patient reported outcome measures, were included. The outcomes reflected the experience of living with diabetes (e.g. psychological well-being, symptom experience, health beliefs and stigma) and behaviours (e.g. self-management). Diabetes distress and self-management behaviours were most endorsed by the evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The review provides a comprehensive list of candidate outcomes endorsed by international evidence and informed by existing outcome sets, and suggestions for measures.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The review offers evidence to guide clinical application. Integrated measurement of these outcomes in care settings holds enormous potential to improve provision of care and outcomes in diabetes.

Current evidence for designing self-management support for underserved populations: an integrative review using the example of diabetes

AIMS

With numerous and continuing attempts at adapting diabetes self-management support programmes to better account for underserved populations, its important that the lessons being learned are understood and shared. The work we present here reviews the latest evidence and best practice in designing and embedding culturally and socially sensitive, self-management support programmes.

METHODS

We explored the literature with regard to four key design considerations of diabetes self-management support programmes: Composition - the design and content of written materials and digital tools and interfaces; Structure - the combination of individual and group sessions, their frequency, and the overall duration of programmes; Facilitators - the combination of individuals used to deliver the programme; and Context - the influence and mitigation of a range of individual, socio-cultural, and environmental factors.

RESULTS

We found useful and recent examples of design innovation within a variety of countries and models of health care delivery including Brazil, Mexico, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Within Composition we confirmed the importance of retaining best practice in creating readily understood written information and intuitive digital interfaces; Structure the need to offer group, individual, and remote learning options in programmes of flexible duration and frequency; Facilitators where the benefits of using culturally concordant peers and community-based providers were described; and finally in Context the need to integrate self-management support programmes within existing health systems, and tailor their various constituent elements according to the language, resources, and beliefs of individuals and their communities.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of design principles across the four design considerations were identified that together offer a promising means of creating the next generation of self-management support programme more readily accessible for underserved communities. Ultimately, we recommend that the precise configuration should be co-produced by all relevant service and patient stakeholders and its delivery embedded in local health systems.

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.

Identifying priority questions regarding rapid systematic reviews' methods: protocol for an eDelphi study

INTRODUCTION

Rapid systematic reviews (RRs) have the potential to provide timely information to decision-makers, thus directly impacting healthcare. However, consensus regarding the most efficient approaches to performing RRs and the presence of several unaddressed methodological issues pose challenges. With such a large potential research agenda for RRs, it is unclear what should be prioritised.

OBJECTIVE

To elicit a consensus from RR experts and interested parties on what are the most important methodological questions (from the generation of the question to the writing of the report) for the field to address in order to guide the effective and efficient development of RRs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

An eDelphi study will be conducted. Researchers with experience in evidence synthesis and other interested parties (eg, knowledge users, patients, community members, policymaker, industry, journal editors and healthcare providers) will be invited to participate. The following steps will be taken: (1) a core group of experts in evidence synthesis will generate the first list of items based on the available literature; (2) using LimeSurvey, participants will be invited to rate and rank the importance of suggested RR methodological questions. Questions with open format responses will allow for modifications to the wording of items or the addition of new items; (3) three survey rounds will be performed asking participants to re-rate items, with items deemed of low importance being removed at each round; (4) a list of items will be generated with items believed to be of high importance by ≥75% of participants being included and (5) this list will be discussed at an online consensus meeting that will generate a summary document containing the final priority list. Data analysis will be performed using raw numbers, means and frequencies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Concordia University Human Research Ethics Committee (#30015229). Both traditional, for example, scientific conference presentations and publication in scientific journals, and non-traditional, for example, lay summaries and infographics, knowledge translation products will be created.

Comparison of diabetes distress and depression screening results of emerging adults with type 1 diabetes onset at different ages: findings from the German early-onset T1D study and the German Diabetes Study (GDS)

BACKGROUND

Diabetes distress is increasingly considered one of the most important psychosocial issues in the care of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). We analyse whether diabetes distress and depression screening results of emerging adults are associated with the age at T1D onset.

METHODS

Data were taken from two cohort studies conducted at the German Diabetes Center, Düsseldorf, Germany. The 18-30-year-old participants had an age at onset either before the age of 5 years (childhood-onset long-term T1D study group, N = 749) or during adulthood (adult-onset short-term T1D study group from the German Diabetes Study (GDS), N = 163). Diabetes distress and depression screening were analysed by means of the 20-item Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID-20) scale and the nine-item depression module from the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). The average causal effect of age at onset was estimated by a doubly robust causal inference method.

RESULTS

The PAID-20 total scores were increased in the adult-onset study group [potential outcome mean (POM) 32.1 (95% confidence interval 28.0; 36.1) points] compared to the childhood-onset study group [POM 21.0 (19.6; 22.4) points, difference 11.1 (6.9; 15.3) points, p<0.001] adjusted for age, sex and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels. Moreover, more participants in the adult-onset group [POM 34.5 (24.9; 44.2) %] than in the childhood-onset group [POM 16.3 (13.3; 19.2) %] screened positive for diabetes distress [adjusted difference 18.3 (8.3; 28.2) %, p<0.001]. The PHQ-9 total score [difference 0.3 (-1.1; 1.7) points, p=0.660] and the proportion of participants with a positive screening result for depression [difference 0.0 (-12.7; 12.8) %, p=0.994] did not differ between the groups in the adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Emerging adults with short-term type 1 diabetes screened positive for diabetes distress more often than adults with type 1 diabetes onset during early childhood when age, sex and HbA1c values were considered confounding factors. Accounting for age at onset or the duration of diabetes may help explain the heterogeneity in the data when psychological factors are examined.

Development and implementation of a standardized process for identifying ambulatory pharmacy clinical outcomes measures

PURPOSE

There is minimal available guidance on the process for selection of clinical outcomes measures to demonstrate the impact of clinic-based pharmacists (CBPs) despite an increased need and desire for outcomes data. The overall aims of this project were to (1) develop a standardized process for identifying clinical outcomes measures impacted by CBPs and (2) identify and prioritize potential clinical outcomes measures to track for CBPs within 4 specialty clinic pilot sites.

METHODS

To develop a standardized process for identification and prioritization of measures, 4 consecutive Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were performed with 4 different specialty clinics serving as pilot sites. Following each pilot cycle, rapid cycle improvements were implemented. A modified Delphi methodology served as the framework for measure selection and included gathering expert stakeholder insights regarding importance, feasibility, and validity of potential measures. Measures were identified via environmental scan of existing validated quality metrics, clinical guidelines, and other relevant literature.

RESULTS

The primary outcome for this project was the development and refinement of a standardized process for measure identification and prioritization. The secondary outcome was narrowed and ranked lists of stakeholder-prioritized measures for 4 CBP-embedded pilot specialty clinics. These lists included 12 cardiothoracic transplant, 6 breast oncology, 9 neurology, and 7 gynecologic oncology measures.

CONCLUSION

The measure identification and prioritization process developed was successfully utilized to identify and prioritize outcomes measures to track for 4 CBP-embedded specialty clinics. Due to the successful use of the process in a variety of specialty clinics, the standardized process has significant potential for expansion.

Pediatric core outcome sets had deficiencies and lacked child and family input: A methodological review

OBJECTIVES

The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD), published in 2017, contains 11 standards (12 criteria) describing minimum design criteria for core outcome set (COS) development. We aimed to identify and appraise all pediatric COS published prior to COS-STAD, and assess methods of child and family involvement in their development.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This methodological review included documents that described the development of pediatric COS up to and including 2017. Reviewers independently assessed each COS against COS-STAD criteria, and methods of involvement were synthesized.

RESULTS

A total of 56 pediatric COS were identified, meeting a median of five COS-STAD criteria. Nearly all met criteria on COS scope specification for setting, health condition, and population; 41% met criteria for intervention. Standards were more often met for the involvement of researchers/health professionals (64%) than for patients or their representatives (29%). Few met standards for achieving COS consensus (4-23%). Methods of child and family engagement varied and were limited.

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of pediatric COS developed prior to COS-STAD recommendations show gaps in design methodology. Updated and newly developed pediatric COS would benefit from the inclusion of the child and family voice, implementing a priori criteria for COS consensus, and clear reporting.

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.

Innovative Designs and Logistical Considerations for Expedited Clinical Development of Combination Disease-Modifying Treatments for Type 1 Diabetes

It has been 100 years since the life-saving discovery of insulin, yet daily management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) remains challenging. Even with closed-loop systems, the prevailing need for persons with T1D to attempt to match the kinetics of insulin activity with the kinetics of carbohydrate metabolism, alongside dynamic life factors affecting insulin requirements, results in the need for frequent interventions to adjust insulin dosages or consume carbohydrates to correct mismatches. Moreover, peripheral insulin dosing leaves the liver underinsulinized and hyperglucagonemic and peripheral tissues overinsulinized relative to their normal physiologic roles in glucose homeostasis. Disease-modifying therapies (DMT) to preserve and/or restore functional β-cell mass with controlled or corrected autoimmunity would simplify exogenous insulin need, thereby reducing disease mortality, morbidity, and management burdens. However, identifying effective DMTs for T1D has proven complex. There is some consensus that combination DMTs are needed for more meaningful clinical benefit. Other complexities are addressable with more innovative trial designs and logistics. While no DMT has yet been approved for marketing, existing regulatory guidance provides opportunities to further "de-risk" development. The T1D development ecosystem can accelerate progress by using more innovative ways for testing DMTs for T1D. This perspective outlines suggestions for accelerating evaluation of candidate T1D DMTs, including combination therapies, by use of innovative trial designs, enhanced logistical coordination of efforts, and regulatory guidance for expedited development, combination therapies, and adaptive designs.

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.

Patient-centred clinical trial design

Patient involvement in clinical trial design can facilitate the recruitment and retention of participants as well as potentially increase the uptake of the tested intervention and the impact of the findings on patient outcomes. Despite these benefits, patients still have very limited involvement in designing and conducting trials in nephrology. Many trials do not address research questions and outcomes that are important to patients, including patient-reported outcomes that reflect how patients feel and function. This limitation can undermine the relevance, reliability and value of trial-based evidence for decision-making in clinical practice and health policy. However, efforts to involve patients with kidney disease are increasing across all stages of the trial process from priority setting, to study design (including selection of outcomes and approaches to improve participant recruitment and retention) and dissemination and implementation of the findings. Harnessing the patient voice in designing trials can ensure that efforts and resources are directed towards patient-centred trials that address the needs, concerns and priorities of patients living with kidney disease with the aim of achieving transformative improvements in care and outcomes.

Rating the importance of outcomes from diabetes trials. A survey of patients' and doctors' opinions

Purpose

To investigate and compare how patients with diabetes mellitus and doctors rate the importance of outcomes used as part of composite endpoints in clinical diabetes trials. Secondly, to compare the ratings of outcomes between patients with low and high education.

Methods

Using a pre-piloted questionnaire, patients with diabetes and doctors working with diabetes were asked to rate the importance of 36 different outcomes commonly used in trials assessing intervention effects in patients with diabetes. The respondents were asked to rate individual outcomes as being either critical, of major importance, of moderate importance, or of minor importance.

Results

The study population consisted of 139 patients with a mean age of 56.6 years and an average duration of diabetes for 13.6 years and 45 doctors with a mean time of practice of 19.6 years. There was no difference between patients' and doctors' rating of risk of mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, and percutaneous coronary intervention (all p-values > 0.34). Non-fatal stroke, admission for heart failure or angina was perceived more severely by patients compared to doctors (all p-values < 0.03). Patients rated risk of foot-ulcers, amputations and quality of life as more important compared to doctors (p-values < 0.01).

Conclusion

The current study suggest that patients and doctors weigh some diabetic outcomes used as part of composite endpoints in clinical diabetes trials differently. These findings call for more studies on patient reported outcomes and patient education for improved personal care.

Highlights

• We performed this study to assess how patients and practicing physicians rate the importance of outcomes commonly used in diabetes trials.• We found that patients and doctors rate the importance of some outcomes used in clinical diabetes trials differently.• These findings suggest that shared decision making is pivotal when taking clinical decisions and that future diabetes studies incorporate end points relevant to both patients and clinicians and do not combine end points which are not equally important.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for evaluating mixed-diagnosis falls prevention interventions for people with Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s Disease and stroke

Background: Given the high incidence of falls and their associated negative effects, the development of effective falls prevention interventions for people with Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Parkinson's Disease (PD) and stroke is a priority. Currently the implementation of condition-specific falls prevention interventions is challenging in the community due to lack of participants and resources. Given the similarities in falls risk factors across stroke, PD and MS, the design of mixed-diagnosis interventions for groups comprising of people with these three neurological conditions may solve these implementation challenges. Having a core outcome set (COS) for evaluating these interventions would enable the comparison and combination of data, thereby facilitating progress in this research area. Therefore, the aim of this research study is to develop a COS for evaluating mixed-diagnosis falls prevention interventions for people with MS, PD and stroke. Methods: This will be a mixed-methods, international, multi-perspective Delphi consensus study with five stages. Stage one will involve the identification of potential outcomes through a systematic literature search, patient focus groups, and consultation with our stakeholder group. The second stage will be the development of the Delphi survey using the outcomes elicited from stage one. Stage three will be the prioritisation of outcomes using a two-round online Delphi survey involving patients, clinicians, researchers and policy-makers/service-planners. The fourth stage will be to identify and recommend outcome measures and definitions. The final stage will be a consensus meeting with representatives from each stakeholder group to agree upon the final COS. Discussion: Adoption of this COS in future trials investigating the effectiveness of mixed-diagnosis falls prevention interventions for people with MS, PD and stroke will facilitate the comparison and combination of research findings. This should translate into improved decision-making by service-planners/policy-makers and clinicians regarding the implementation of evidence-based falls prevention interventions into practice.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for evaluating mixed-diagnosis falls prevention interventions for people with Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease and stroke

Background: Given the high incidence of falls and their associated negative effects, the development of effective falls prevention interventions for people with Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Parkinson's Disease (PD) and stroke is a priority. Currently the implementation of condition-specific falls prevention interventions is challenging in the community due to lack of participants and resources. Given the similarities in falls risk factors across stroke, PD and MS, the design of mixed-diagnosis interventions for groups comprising of people with these three neurological conditions may solve these implementation challenges. Having a core outcome set (COS) for evaluating these interventions would enable the comparison and combination of data, thereby facilitating progress in this research area. Therefore, the aim of this research study is to develop a COS for evaluating mixed-diagnosis falls prevention interventions for people with MS, PD and stroke. Methods: This will be a mixed-methods, international, multi-perspective Delphi consensus study with five stages. Stage one will involve the identification of potential outcomes through a systematic literature search, patient focus groups, and consultation with our stakeholder group. The second stage will be the development of the Delphi survey using the outcomes elicited from stage one. Stage three will be the prioritisation of outcomes using a two-round online Delphi survey involving patients, clinicians, researchers and policy-makers/service-planners. The fourth stage will be to identify and recommend outcome measures and definitions. The final stage will be a consensus meeting with representatives from each stakeholder group to agree upon the final COS. Discussion: Adoption of this COS in future trials investigating the effectiveness of mixed-diagnosis falls prevention interventions for people with MS, PD and stroke will facilitate the comparison and combination of research findings. This should translate into improved decision-making by service-planners/policy-makers and clinicians regarding the implementation of evidence-based falls prevention interventions into practice.

Williamson P, Dodd S. A pilot study assessing the similarity between core outcome sets and outcomes included in health technology assessments

Objective: Core outcome sets (COS) are an agreed standardised collection of outcomes created with representation from all key stakeholders (such as patients, clinicians, researchers), which should be reported as a minimum for all trials in that corresponding clinical area. There has been little research investigating the use of core outcomes in Health technology assessments (HTAs) and none in non-oncology HTAs. This study aimed to assess the similarity between COS and HTA outcomes. Methods: Ten COS published between 2015 and 2019 were selected, with patient participation taken as a proxy measure for a high quality COS. The INAHTA database was used as a source to identify relevant HTAs, which were accessed through the hyperlinks provided. Outcomes selected for these assessments were categorised as either a specific, partial or no match compared to the COS. An additional cohort of non-oncology HTAs published between 2019 and 2021 were identified from the NICE website and compared against a relevant COS. Results: Six hundred and fifty-one HTAs were matched to the ten COS areas, of which 119 were reviewed. Of a possible 1318 core outcome matches, there were 562 (43%) matches, 413 (31%) specific and 149 (11%) partial. NICE HTA matches against corresponding COS ranged from 44% to 100%, with a total of 78% (73/94) matches, 57 (61%) specific and 16 (17%) partial. Conclusion: Further work is required to promote the awareness and implementation of COS within HTAs. The degree of matching between COS and NICE HTA outcomes is encouraging, demonstrating acceptance of COS by HTA producers.

Improving outcomes among young adults with type 1 diabetes: the D1 Now pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The D1 Now intervention is designed to improve outcomes in young adults living with type 1 diabetes. It consists of three components: an agenda-setting tool, an interactive messaging system and a support worker. The aim of the D1 Now pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) was to gather and analyse acceptability and feasibility data to allow (1) further refinement of the D1 Now intervention, and (2) determination of the feasibility of evaluating the D1 Now intervention in a future definitive RCT.

METHODS

A pilot cluster RCT with two intervention arms and a control arm was conducted over 12 months. Quantitative data collection was based on a core outcome set and took place at baseline and 12 months. Semi-structured interviews with participants took place at 6, 9 and 12 months. Fidelity and health economic costings were also assessed.

RESULTS

Four diabetes centres and 57 young adults living with type 1 diabetes took part. 50% of eligible young adults were recruited and total loss to follow-up was 12%. Fidelity, as measured on a study delivery checklist, was good but there were three minor processes that were not delivered as intended in the protocol. Overall, the qualitative data demonstrated that the intervention was considered acceptable and feasible, though this differed across intervention components. The agenda-setting tool and support worker intervention components were acceptable to both young adults and staff, but views on the interactive messaging system were mixed.

CONCLUSIONS

Some modifications are required to the D1 Now intervention components and research processes but with these in place progression to a definitive RCT is considered feasible.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN (ref: ISRCTN74114336 ).

Synthesizing Core Outcome Sets for outcomes research in cohort studies: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Life course studies are designed to "collect once, use multiple times" for observational and, increasingly, interventional research. Core Outcome Sets (COS) are minimum sets developed for clinical trials by multi-stakeholder consensus methodologies. We aimed to synthesize published COS that might guide outcomes selection for early life cohorts with an interventional focus.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Medline, COMET, and CROWN for COS published before January 2021 relevant to four life stages (pregnancy, newborns, children <8 years, and parents (adults aged 18-50 years)). We synthesized core outcomes into overarching constructs.

RESULTS

From 46 COS we synthesized 414 core outcomes into 118 constructs. "Quality of life", "adverse events", "medication use", "hospitalization", and "mortality" were consistent across all stages. For pregnancy, common constructs included "preterm birth", "delivery mode", "pre-eclampsia", "gestational weight gain", "gestational diabetes", and "hemorrhage"; for newborns, "birthweight", "small for gestational age", "neurological damage", and "morbidity" and "infection/sepsis"; for pediatrics, "pain", "gastrointestinal morbidity", "growth/weight", "breastfeeding", "feeding problems", "hearing", "neurodevelopmental morbidity", and "social development"; and for adults, "disease burden", "mental health", "neurological function/stroke", and "cardiovascular health/morbidity".

CONCLUSION

This COS synthesis generated outcome constructs that are of high value to stakeholders (participants, health providers, services), relevant to life course research, and could position cohorts for trial capabilities.

IMPACT

We synthesized existing Core Outcome Sets as a transparent methodology that could prioritize outcomes for lifecourse cohorts with an interventional focus. "Quality of life", "adverse events", "medication use", "hospitalization", and "mortality" are important outcomes across pregnancy, newborns, childhood, and early-to-mid-adulthood (the age range relevant to parents). Other common outcomes (such as "birthweight", "cognitive function/ability", "psychological health") are also highly relevant to lifecourse research. This synthesis could assist new early life cohorts to pre-select outcomes that are of high value to stakeholders (participants, health providers, services), are relevant to lifecourse research, and could position them for future trials and interventional capability.

Developing and Evaluating Behaviour Change Interventions for People with Younger-Onset Type 2 Diabetes: Lessons and Recommendations from Existing Programmes

People with younger-onset type 2 diabetes (YOT2D, diagnosis before 40 years of age) are at higher risk of morbidity and premature mortality compared with their similar-age type 1 diabetes and later-onset type 2 diabetes peers. Despite recommendations for targeted, behavioural, and psychosocial approaches to optimising health outcomes, there are few such interventions for this group. Furthermore, evaluations of health behaviour change interventions targeting this priority population have proven challenging to complete. Despite this, there is little guidance for future behavioural programme developers. The aims of this paper are to synthesise lessons learned and recommendations from published evaluations of YOT2D-focused health behaviour change interventions, and illustrate challenges and solutions using case studies from our own experience. A rapid review of the literature identified 11 trials of behavioural interventions for YOT2D (5 randomised controlled trials, 6 pre/post studies). We sourced related needs assessment and development papers to describe the life course of each programme. We identified two development and two evaluation-related themes impacting successful trial execution. Development recommendations include ensuring appropriate adaptation of existing interventions to the unique challenges and characteristics of the target group, use of theory or theoretical frameworks throughout, and involvement of the priority population and key stakeholders from inception. Evaluation recommendations include planning for meaningful evaluation and development of age-appropriate Core Outcomes Sets. Future programme developers would benefit from closer attention to intervention development guidelines and a focus on supporting those with YOT2D to achieve behaviour change and diabetes self-management goals, ahead of change to biomedical outcomes.

Evaluating the Impact of Stakeholder Engagement in a School-Based Type 1 Diabetes Study

OBJECTIVE

Although the importance of stakeholder engagement (SE) for patient-centered research is recognized, few studies document SE processes and influence on research outcomes in the diabetes field. We applied a research-informed framework to evaluate the impact of SE on a pediatric diabetes study exploring school nurse perspectives on modern diabetes devices.

METHODS

We recruited parents of children with type 1 diabetes, school nurses, and diabetes providers. Stakeholders convened virtually every 2 months for 12 months. Goals for SE included input on research materials, interpretation of findings, and future research directions. Processes were assessed using a validated survey. Immediate outcomes included changes to research materials and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included research efficiency and value (acceptance by community partners).

RESULTS

Each role was represented at every meeting. The majority of stakeholders (>70%) completed the survey at study midpoint and end points. All surveyed indicated that they had received all desired information, shared feedback, and felt valued. Stakeholders were satisfied with the meeting frequency. Participants appreciated learning from each other and expressed enthusiasm for continued research participation. They described their role as one of consultant rather than research team members. SE resulted in five additional interview questions. Nearly 70 comments added to the interpretation of qualitative themes. Findings were published within 12 months and recognized by the state school nursing organization.

CONCLUSION

SE was well received and led to meaningful changes in content and dissemination of a diabetes study. A systematic approach to evaluating SE can increase scientific rigor and reproducibility and contribute to best practices for SE in diabetes research.

Diabetes distress and glycaemic control in young adults with type 1 diabetes: Associations by use of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors

AIMS

We determined whether high diabetes distress (DD) in young adults with type 1 diabetes was associated with higher glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c ) levels and whether this association was similar among those who were and were not using diabetes devices (insulin pumps and/or continuous glucose monitors [CGMs]).

METHODS

In 2017, an online survey was completed by 423 of 743 (57%) young adults (19-31 years) with type 1 diabetes receiving care at a specialty clinic in New York City. HbA_1c level was the primary outcome measure, and high DD (Diabetes Distress Scale score ≥3) was the primary exposure. Associations were adjusted for sociodemographic covariates.

RESULTS

Of the 419 respondents with complete DD data, 59% were female and 69% were non-Hispanic white. Both devices (pump and CGM) were used by 35%, either device by 42% and neither device by 24%. The mean (SD) HbA_1c was 64 (19) mmol/mol (8.0 [1.7] %) and 24% had high DD. The adjusted mean (95% confidence interval) HbA_1c was 10 (6, 14) mmol/mol (0.9 [0.5, 1.2] %) greater in those with high DD than in those without it. This HbA_1c difference associated with high DD was similar regardless of device use: 9 (3, 15) mmol/mol (0.8 [0.3, 1.4] %) greater among those using both devices; and 9 (-0.9, 18) mmol/mol (0.8 [-0.1, 1.7] %) greater among those using neither device.

CONCLUSIONS

High DD in young adults requires more attention because it is associated with higher HbA_1c levels, even among those using insulin pumps and CGMs.

Williamson P, Dodd S. A pilot study assessing the similarity between core outcome sets and outcomes included in health technology assessments

Objective: Core outcome sets (COS) are an agreed standardised collection of outcomes created with representation from all key stakeholders (such as patients, clinicians, researchers), which should be reported as a minimum for all trials in that corresponding clinical area. There has been little research investigating the use of core outcomes in Health technology assessments (HTAs) and none in non-oncology HTAs. This study aimed to assess the similarity between COS and HTA outcomes. Methods: Ten COS published between 2015 and 2019 were selected, with patient participation taken as a proxy measure for a high quality COS. The INAHTA database was used as a source to identify relevant HTAs, which were accessed through the hyperlinks provided. Outcomes selected for these assessments were categorised as either a specific, partial or no match compared to the COS. An additional cohort of non-oncology HTAs published between 2019 and 2021 were identified from the NICE website and compared against a relevant COS. Results: Six hundred and fifty-one HTAs were matched to the ten COS areas, of which 119 were reviewed. Of a possible 1318 core outcome matches, there were 562 (43%) matches, 413 (31%) specific and 149 (11%) partial. NICE HTA matches against corresponding COS ranged from 44% to 100%, with a total of 78% (73/94) matches, 57 (61%) specific and 16 (17%) partial. Conclusion: Further work is required to promote the awareness and implementation of COS within HTAs. The degree of matching between COS and NICE HTA outcomes is encouraging, demonstrating acceptance of COS by HTA producers.

Psychological interventions to improve self-management of type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

For people with diabetes mellitus to achieve optimal glycaemic control, motivation to perform self-management is important. The research team wanted to determine whether or not psychological interventions are clinically effective and cost-effective in increasing self-management and improving glycaemic control.

OBJECTIVES

The first objective was to determine the clinical effectiveness of psychological interventions for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and people with type 2 diabetes mellitus so that they have improved (1) glycated haemoglobin levels, (2) diabetes self-management and (3) quality of life, and fewer depressive symptoms. The second objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions.

DATA SOURCES

The following databases were accessed (searches took place between 2003 and 2016): MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Web of Science, and Dissertation Abstracts International. Diabetes conference abstracts, reference lists of included studies and Clinicaltrials.gov trial registry were also searched.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic review, aggregate meta-analysis, network meta-analysis, individual patient data meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness modelling were all used. Risk of bias of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook (Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928).

DESIGN

Systematic review, meta-analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis and patient and public consultation were all used.

SETTING

Settings in primary or secondary care were included.

PARTICIPANTS

Adolescents and children with type 1 diabetes mellitus and adults with types 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus were included.

INTERVENTIONS

The interventions used were psychological treatments, including and not restricted to cognitive-behavioural therapy, counselling, family therapy and psychotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Glycated haemoglobin levels, self-management behaviours, body mass index, blood pressure levels, depressive symptoms and quality of life were all used as outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 96 studies were included in the systematic review (n = 18,659 participants). In random-effects meta-analysis, data on glycated haemoglobin levels were available for seven studies conducted in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (n = 851 participants) that demonstrated a pooled mean difference of -0.13 (95% confidence interval -0.33 to 0.07), a non-significant decrease in favour of psychological treatment; 18 studies conducted in adolescents/children with type 1 diabetes mellitus (n = 2583 participants) that demonstrated a pooled mean difference of 0.00 (95% confidence interval -0.18 to 0.18), indicating no change; and 49 studies conducted in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 12,009 participants) that demonstrated a pooled mean difference of -0.21 (95% confidence interval -0.31 to -0.10), equivalent to reduction in glycated haemoglobin levels of -0.33% or ≈3.5 mmol/mol. For type 2 diabetes mellitus, there was evidence that psychological interventions improved dietary behaviour and quality of life but not blood pressure, body mass index or depressive symptoms. The results of the network meta-analysis, which considers direct and indirect effects of multiple treatment comparisons, suggest that, for adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (7 studies; 968 participants), attention control and cognitive-behavioural therapy are clinically effective and cognitive-behavioural therapy is cost-effective. For adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (49 studies; 12,409 participants), cognitive-behavioural therapy and counselling are effective and cognitive-behavioural therapy is potentially cost-effective. The results of the individual patient data meta-analysis for adolescents/children with type 1 diabetes mellitus (9 studies; 1392 participants) suggest that there were main effects for age and diabetes duration. For adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (19 studies; 3639 participants), baseline glycated haemoglobin levels moderated treatment outcome.

LIMITATIONS

Aggregate meta-analysis was limited to glycaemic control for type 1 diabetes mellitus. It was not possible to model cost-effectiveness for adolescents/children with type 1 diabetes mellitus and modelling for type 2 diabetes mellitus involved substantial uncertainty. The individual patient data meta-analysis included only 40-50% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that psychological treatments offer minimal clinical benefit in improving glycated haemoglobin levels for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, there was no evidence of benefit compared with control interventions in improving glycated haemoglobin levels for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

FUTURE WORK

Future work should consider the competency of the interventionists delivering a therapy and psychological approaches that are matched to a person and their life course.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033619.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Developing a video intervention to improve youth question-asking and provider education during paediatric diabetes clinic encounters: The Promoting Adolescents Communication and Engagement study

BACKGROUND

Research on long-term health conditions indicates that adolescents are not actively involved during their medical visits. Active involvement is essential because this can help adolescents learn how to self-manage their treatment plan.

OBJECTIVE

To co-design a video intervention to improve youth question-asking and provider education during paediatric diabetes visits.

PATIENT INVOLVEMENT

A participatory-led approach was used to co-design the video, through a combination of interviews/ focus groups and the establishment of a Youth Advisory Group.

METHODS

First, focus groups and one-to-one interviews were held with adolescents, parents and healthcare providers. Second, two workshops were held with the Youth Advisory Group, Parent Advisory Group and stakeholders on script design. Finally, an iterative development of the video took place between the research team, videographer, both advisory groups and the steering committee. There were three rounds of feedback before the video was finalised.

RESULTS

Adolescents' content preferences included: 1) message of empowerment; 2) managing your diabetes so you can get on with the fun stuff in life; 3) Promoting independence; 4) Reasons for not speaking at clinic visits and reassurance; 5) Becoming comfortable to speak and ask questions at clinic visits; 6) Practical advice on how to ask questions. Formatting preferences included that the video should be short, divided into segments, with adolescents with diabetes acting in it, and speaking directly to the camera.

DISCUSSION

Identifying and reflecting adolescents' needs and preferences for engagement with healthcare providers was critical in the development process. Adolescents' participation in the co-design process was pivotal to the acceptability of the intervention for adolescents with diabetes.

PRACTICAL VALUE

The intervention may increase adolescents' participation in communication and interactions with healthcare providers, which may help them to be more active in the self-management of their condition.

Generating a Core Set of Outcomes for Hospital-Based Violence Intervention Programs

Hospital-based violence intervention programs (HVIPs) engage individuals who have experienced violent victimization in postmedical care programming, with the goal of reducing the incidence and impact of future injuries. Although there is some empirical support for HVIPs' impact on violence and crime-related outcomes, proper impact assessment is limited by a lack of systematized research on outcomes that relate to the proximal goals and activities of the programs themselves. To address this critical gap, we conducted a two-stage Delphi method to elicit and prioritize these outcomes using the wisdom and experience of those who are engaged in service delivery (i.e., HVIP community-based practitioners, program coordinators, and embedded researchers; N = 79). Through this process, respondents prioritized outcomes related to posttraumatic stress symptoms, beliefs about aggression, coping strategies, and emotional regulation, which have not been consistently measured using validated or standardized tools. Results suggest that, rather than limiting program outcomes to those related to repeat violent injury or criminality, hospital- and community-based violence prevention programs seek to improve and measure mental health and socioemotional outcomes as a benchmark for healing and recovery after a violent injury. Prioritization of these outcomes broadens the definition of recovery to include psychosocial health and well-being. In addition, inclusion of these outcomes in effectiveness studies will serve to bolster the relevance of findings, and provide support for continued development and refinement of HVIP practice.

Diabetes distress instruments in adults with Type 1 diabetes: A systematic review using the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) checklist

AIMS

To identify all extant instruments used to measure diabetes distress in adults with Type 1 diabetes and to evaluate the evidence for the measurement properties of these instruments.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, CINAHL plus and PsycINFO were systematically searched from inception up until 12 March 2020 for all publications which evaluated the psychometric properties of diabetes distress measurement instruments. The quality of the methodology and the measurement properties in the identified studies were evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines.

RESULTS

Seven out of the 7656 articles retrieved in the search were included in the final review. Four diabetes distress measurement instruments were identified, none of which displayed evidence for all measurement properties specified in the COSMIN guidelines. The Problem Areas in Diabetes-11 (PAID-11) demonstrated the best psychometric properties, displaying strong evidence for structural validity, internal consistency, hypothesis testing, responsiveness and criterion validity. The Problem Areas in Diabetes scale (PAID) was the most frequently investigated instrument, demonstrating good relevance and hypothesis testing across four studies; however, concerns remain over its factor structure.

CONCLUSION

The PAID-11 appears to be the most psychometrically sound instrument for measuring diabetes distress in adults with Type 1 diabetes, displaying strong evidence for a range of measurement properties. However, as only one study evaluated this instrument and its content validity has yet to be assessed, further validation is warranted. Additional qualitative work is needed to assess the content validity of these instruments among individuals with Type 1 diabetes.

An international Delphi consensus study to define motivational communication in the context of developing a training program for physicians

Poor health behaviors (e.g., smoking, poor diet, and physical inactivity) are major risk factors for noncommunicable chronic diseases (NCDs). Evidence supporting traditional advice-giving approaches to promote behavior change is weak or short lived. Training physicians to improve their behavior change counseling/communication skills is important, yet the evidence for the efficacy and acceptability of existing training programs is lacking and there is little consensus on the core competencies that physicians should master in the context of NCD management. The purpose of this study is to generate an acceptable, evidence-based, stakeholder-informed list of the core communication competencies that physicians should master in the context of NCD management. Using a modified Delphi process for consensus achievement, international behavior change experts, physicians, and allied health care professionals completed four phases of research, including eight rounds of online surveys and in-person meetings over 2 years (n = 13-17 participated in Phases I, III, and IV and n = 39-46 in Phase II). Eleven core communication competencies were identified: reflective listening, expressing empathy, demonstrating acceptance, tolerance, and respect, responding to resistance, (not) negatively judging or blaming, (not) expressing hostility or impatience, eliciting "change-talk"/evocation, (not) being argumentative or confrontational, setting goals, being collaborative, and providing information neutrally. These competencies were used to define a unified approach for conducting behavior change counseling in medical settings: Motivational Communication. The results may be used to inform and standardize physician training in behavior change counseling and communication skills to reduce morbidity and mortality related to poor health behaviors in the context of NCD prevention and management.

Systematic review of international Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: representation of international patients

OBJECTIVES

A core outcome set (COS) describes a minimum set of outcomes to be reported by all clinical trials of one healthcare condition. Delphi surveys are frequently used to achieve consensus on core outcomes. International input is important to achieve global COS uptake. We aimed to investigate participant representation in international Delphi surveys, with reference to the inclusion of patients and participants from low and middle income countries as stakeholders (LMICs).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, COMET database and hand-searching.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Protocols and studies describing Delphi surveys used to develop an international COS for trial reporting, published between 1 January 2017 and 6 June 2019.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Delphi participants were grouped as patients or healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants were considered international if their country of origin was different to that of the first or senior author. Data extraction included participant numbers, country of origin, country income group and whether Delphi surveys were translated. We analysed the impact these factors had on outcome prioritisation.

RESULTS

Of 90 included studies, 69% (n=62) were completed and 31% (n=28) were protocols. Studies recruited more HCPs than patients (median 60 (IQR 30-113) vs 30 (IQR 14-66) participants, respectively). A higher percentage of HCPs was international compared with patients (57% (IQR 37-78) vs 20% (IQR 0-68)). Only 31% (n=28) studies recruited participants from LMICs. Regarding recruitment from LMICs, patients were under-represented (16% studies; n=8) compared with HCPs (22%; n=28). Few (7%; n=6) studies translated Delphi surveys. Only 3% studies (n=3) analysed Delphi responses by geographical location; all found differences in outcome prioritisation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a disproportionately lower inclusion of international patients, compared with HCPs, in COS-development Delphi surveys, particularly within LMICs. Future international Delphi surveys should consider exploring for geographical and income-based differences in outcome prioritisation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019138519.

Use of wearable biometric monitoring devices to measure outcomes in randomized clinical trials: a methodological systematic review

BACKGROUND

Wearable biometric monitoring devices (BMDs) have the potential to transform the conduct of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by shifting the collection of outcome data from single measurements at predefined time points to dense continuous measurements.

METHODS

Methodological systematic review to understand how recent RCTs used BMDs to measure outcomes and to describe the reporting of these RCTs. Electronic search was performed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE and completed a page-by-page hand search in five leading medical journals between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018. Three reviewers independently extracted all primary and secondary outcomes collected using BMDs, and assessed (1) the definitions used to summarize BMD outcome data; (2) whether the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of sensors was reported; (3) the discrepancy with outcomes prespecified in public clinical trial registries; and (4) the methods used to manage missing and incomplete BMD outcome data.

RESULTS

Of the 4562 records screened, 75 RCTs were eligible. Among them, 24% tested a pharmacological intervention and 57% used an inertial measurement sensor to measure physical activity. Included trials involved 464 outcomes (average of 6 [SD = 8] outcomes per trial). In total, 35 trials used a BMD to measure a primary outcome. Several issues affected the value and transparency of trials using BMDs to measure outcomes. First, the definition of outcomes used in the trials was highly heterogeneous (e.g., 21 diabetes trials had 266 outcomes and 153 had different unique definitions to measure diabetes control), which limited the combination and comparison of results. Second, information on the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of sensors used was lacking in 74% of trials. Third, half (53%) of the outcomes measured with BMDs had not been prespecified, with a high risk of outcome reporting bias. Finally, reporting on the management of incomplete outcome data (e.g., due to suboptimal compliance with the BMD) was absent in 68% of RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of BMDs to measure outcomes is becoming the norm rather than the exception in many fields. Yet, trialists need to account for several methodological issues when specifying and conducting RCTs using these novel tools.

Improving Outcomes Among Young Adults with type 1 diabetes: The D1 Now Randomised Pilot Study Protocol

BACKGROUND

Young adults (18-25 years old) living with type 1 diabetes mellitus often have sub-optimal glycaemic levels which can increase their risk of long term diabetes complications. Informed by health psychology theory and using a (public and patient involvement) young adult-centred approach, we have developed a complex intervention, entitled D1 Now, to improve outcomes in this target group. The D1 Now intervention includes three components; 1) a support-worker, 2) an interactive messaging system and 3) an agenda setting tool for use during clinic consultations.

AIMS

The aim of the D1 Now pilot study is to gather and analyse acceptability and feasibility data to allow us to (1) refine the D1 Now intervention, and (2) determine the feasibility of a definitive Randomised Control Trial (RCT) of the intervention.

METHODS

Diabetes clinics on the island of Ireland will be recruited and randomised to a D1 Now intervention arm or a usual care control arm. For a participant to be eligible they should be 18-25 years old and living with type 1 diabetes for at least 12 months. Participant outcomes (influenced by a Core Outcome Set) include change in HbA1c, clinic attendance, number of episodes of severe hypoglycaemia and of diabetic ketoacidosis, diabetes distress, self-management, quality of life and perceived level of control over diabetes; these will be will be measured at baseline and after 12 months follow-up for descriptive statistics only. An assessment of treatment fidelity, a health economic analysis and a qualitative sub-study will also be incorporated into the pilot study. ISRCTN (ref: ISRCTN74114336).

Psychosocial factors associated with HbA1c in adults with insulin pump-treated type 1 diabetes: a systematic review

AIMS

To identify currently available studies on the association between psychosocial factors and HbA_1c in adults with insulin pump-treated type 1 diabetes, by performing a systematic review of the literature.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched for original studies on the association between psychosocial factors and HbA_1c in ≥ 50 adult, non-pregnant, insulin pump users with type 1 diabetes.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 1777 unique records, of which eight were eligible for inclusion. All identified studies were observational, with sample sizes ranging from 51 to 214. Seven different psychosocial factors were investigated in the eight studies. Study analysis suggested that HbA_1c may be associated with diabetes numeracy and quality of life. There were no indications of associations between HbA_1c and fear of hypoglycaemia or self-efficacy. Results regarding associations between HbA_1c and coping style, diabetes distress and locus of control were inconsistent.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review summarizes the currently limited information on the association between psychosocial factors and HbA_1c during insulin pump therapy. The evidence base of the included studies was weak, and this review highlights the need for more research in these areas, with improved methodological and theoretical frameworks, including exploration of a broader spectrum of psychosocial variables and their potential association with HbA_1c and other metabolic outcomes. (PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews registration no: CRD42020145705).

Establishing core outcome domains in pediatric kidney disease: report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Children and Adolescents (SONG-KIDS) consensus workshops

Trials in children with chronic kidney disease do not consistently report outcomes that are critically important to patients and caregivers. This can diminish the relevance and reliability of evidence for decision making, limiting the implementation of results into practice and policy. As part of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Children and Adolescents (SONG-Kids) initiative, we convened 2 consensus workshops in San Diego, California (7 patients, 24 caregivers, 43 health professionals) and Melbourne, Australia (7 patients, 23 caregivers, 49 health professionals). This report summarizes the discussions on the identification and implementation of the SONG-Kids core outcomes set. Four themes were identified; survival and life participation are common high priority goals, capturing the whole child and family, ensuring broad relevance across the patient journey, and requiring feasible and valid measures. Stakeholders supported the inclusion of mortality, infection, life participation, and kidney function as the core outcomes domains for children with chronic kidney disease.

Development of an intervention to facilitate implementation and uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening

BACKGROUND

'Implementation interventions' refer to methods used to enhance the adoption and implementation of clinical interventions such as diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS). DRS is effective, yet uptake is often suboptimal. Despite most routine management taking place in primary care and the central role of health care professionals (HCP) in referring to DRS, few interventions have been developed for primary care. We aimed to develop a multifaceted intervention targeting both professionals and patients to improve DRS uptake as an example of a systematic development process combining theory, stakeholder involvement, and evidence.

METHODS

First, we identified target behaviours through an audit in primary care of screening attendance. Second, we interviewed patients (n = 47) and HCP (n = 30), to identify determinants of uptake using the Theoretical Domains Framework, mapping these to behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to develop intervention content. Thirdly, we conducted semi-structured consensus groups with stakeholders, specifically users of the intervention, i.e. patients (n = 15) and HCPs (n = 16), regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and local relevance of selected BCTs and potential delivery modes. We consulted representatives from the national DRS programme to check intervention 'fit' with existing processes. We applied the APEASE criteria (affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, side effects, and equity) to select the final intervention components, drawing on findings from the previous steps, and a rapid evidence review of operationalised BCT effectiveness.

RESULTS

We identified potentially modifiable target behaviours at the patient (consent, attendance) and professional (registration) level. Patient barriers to consent/attendance included confusion between screening and routine eye checks, and fear of a negative result. Enablers included a recommendation from friends/family or professionals and recognising screening importance. Professional barriers to registration included the time to register patients and a lack of readily available information on uptake in their local area/practice. Most operationalised BCTs were acceptable to patients and HCPs while the response to feasibility varied. After considering APEASE, the core intervention, incorporating a range of BCTs, involved audit/feedback, electronic prompts targeting professionals, HCP-endorsed reminders (face-to-face, by phone and letter), and an information leaflet for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the example of an intervention to improve DRS uptake, this study illustrates an approach to integrate theory with user involvement. This process highlighted tensions between theory-informed and stakeholder suggestions, and the need to apply the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)/BCT structure flexibly. The final intervention draws on the trusted professional-patient relationship, leveraging existing services to enhance implementation of the DRS programme. Intervention feasibility in primary care will be evaluated in a randomised cluster pilot trial.

How Do the Challenges of Emerging Adulthood Inform our Understanding of Diabetes Distress? An Integrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Emerging adulthood (ages 18-29) presents many emotional, social, and developmental challenges that can contribute to an increased sense of burden when managing type 1 diabetes (T1D). Diabetes distress (DD) is the concept that captures the emotional burden, frustrations, and worries resulting from living with T1D. This integrative review sets out to examine the impact of developmental context by answering this question: How do the challenges of emerging adulthood inform our understanding of DD?

RECENT FINDINGS

DD is highly prevalent in emerging adults and occurs at higher rates than in other age groups. Qualitative studies reveal that DD is embedded within the developmental challenges specific to living with T1D during this stage. Quantitative studies reveal the prevalence and correlates of DD in this age group, and qualitative studies augment these findings by capturing the scope and complexity of the emotional burden of living with T1D as an emerging adult.

Randomised controlled trial of a person-centred transition programme for adolescents with type 1 diabetes (STEPSTONES-DIAB): a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Adolescence is a critical period for youths with chronic conditions, when they are supposed to take over the responsibility for their health. Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is one of the most common chronic conditions in childhood and inadequate self-management increases the risk of short-term and long-term complications. There is a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of transition programmes. As a part of the Swedish Transition Effects Project Supporting Teenagers with chrONic mEdical conditionS research programme, the objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and experiences of different transitional care models, including a person-centred transition programme aiming to empower adolescents with T1D to become active partners in their health and care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this randomised controlled trial, patients are recruited from two paediatric diabetes clinics at the age of 16 years. Patients are randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=70) where they will receive usual care plus the structured transition programme, or to the control group (n=70) where they will only receive usual care. Data will be collected at 16, 17 and 18.5 years of age. In a later stage, the intervention group will be compared with adolescents in a dedicated youth clinic in a third setting. The primary outcome is patient empowerment. Secondary outcomes include generic, diabetes-specific and transfer-specific variables.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the Ethical Review Board in Stockholm (Dnr 2018/1725-31). Findings will be reported following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement and disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03994536.

Filling gaps in type 1 diabetes and exercise research: a scoping review and priority-setting project

Our team examined the characteristics of patient engagement (PE) practices in exercise-based randomized trials in type 1 diabetes (T1D), and facilitated T1D stakeholders in determining the top 10 list of priorities for exercise research. Two methodological approaches were employed: a scoping review and a modified James Lind Alliance priority-setting partnership. Published (Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Central databases) and grey literature (www.clinicaltrials.gov) were searched to identify randomized controlled trials of exercise interventions lasting minimum 4 weeks and available in English. We extracted information on PE and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to identify if patient perspectives had been implemented. Based on results, we set out to determine exercise research priorities as a first step towards a patient-engaged research agenda. An online survey was distributed across Canada to collect research questions from patients, caregivers and healthcare providers. We qualitatively analyzed submitted questions and compiled a long list that a 12-person stakeholder steering committee used to identify the top 10 priority research questions. Of 9962 identified sources, 19 published trials and 4 trial registrations fulfilled inclusion criteria. No evidence of PE existed in any included study. Most commonly measured PROs were frequency of hypoglycemia (n=7) and quality of life (n=4). The priority-setting survey yielded 194 submitted research questions. Steering committee rankings identified 10 priorities focused on lifestyle factors and exercise modifications to maintain short-term glycemic control. Recent exercise-based randomized trials in T1D have not included PE and PROs. Patient priorities for exercise research have yet to be addressed with adequately designed clinical trials.

An international multi-stakeholder delphi consensus exercise to develop a core outcomes set (COS) for surgical fixation of rib fractures

INTRODUCTION

A patient-relevant, focused Core Outcome Set (COS) is essential to the design of clinical trials dealing with chest wall trauma, in order to maximise quality of evidence regarding impact of interventions and to reduce research waste.

METHODS

Outcome measures were collated by way of systematic review and entered into a three round Delphi consensus completed anonymously online. Participants were international clinicians and allied health professionals (AHP) involved in the treatment of rib fractures as well as patients who had experienced severe chest trauma. Consensus thresholds for statements were defined a priori as a group rating of more than 70% or less than 15% for 'important' or 'not important'.

RESULTS

Sixty-five participants responded to the first round and the final round Final round consisted of five AHP, two patients and 16 clinicians from eight different countries. Twenty-three outcomes were regarded as important for the COS; eight adverse events, three mortality, five clinical or physiological outcomes, six life impact and one resource-related. Health related quality of life was rated highest of the life impact outcomes but participants thought it was also important to assess disability, physical function, quality of life, return to activities and return to work.

CONCLUSION

Collecting serious adverse outcomes was important to all stakeholders as were life impact outcomes such as quality of life, physical function and return to activities. Resource use outcomes were considered less important. We recommend this Core Outcome Set, developed with multiple relevant stakeholders, for use in future clinical trials, following further work on the most appropriate methods and instruments for measurement.

Identifying Outcome Measures for Type 2 Diabetes Value-Based Contracting Using the Delphi Method

BACKGROUND

Value-based contracts (VBCs) between payers and pharmaceutical manufacturers link drug payments to predefined performance measures and require shared risk between both entities. It is unclear how outcome measures were selected in previously reported VBCs, and many VBCs have focused on surrogate endpoints often used in the conduct of clinical trials, which may not be valued by or of importance to patients.

OBJECTIVE

To identify outcome measures that are meaningful to key stakeholders and feasibly measured to inform VBCs for diabetes medications.

METHODS

We conducted a modified Delphi survey to incorporate views from patients (n = 9), endocrinologists (n = 5), primary care physicians (n = 4), payers (n = 3), pharmacy benefit managers (n = 3), and pharmaceutical company representatives (n = 2). A list of 12 diabetes-related outcome measures was generated from the literature and consultations with subject matter experts. Participants rated the importance of each outcome on a 5-point Likert scale and selected the 3 most meaningful outcomes. Nonpatient participants then used a Likert scale to rate the feasibility of collecting each outcome. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% agreement on the importance and feasibility of an outcome (Likert scores 4 or 5 or selection of an outcome as most meaningful). A 2-sample test of proportions was performed to examine differences between patient and nonpatient stakeholder rankings of outcomes.

RESULTS

All 12 outcomes reached consensus for importance on the Likert scale. The measure "reducing risk of heart attacks" was the most meaningful outcome (84%), while "reducing A1c levels" ranked second (68%). The 2 measures rated as most feasibly collected were "reducing A1c levels" and "reducing risk of hospitalizations from diabetes" (93.8% each). The measures "weight loss," "reducing risk of diabetes-related kidney disease," "reducing risk of emergency room visits from diabetes," and "reducing risk of diabetes-related amputations and foot ulcers" also reached consensus for feasibility. There were statistically significant differences between patient and nonpatient stakeholders in the selection of "reducing A1c levels" (37.5% vs. 82.3%, respectively; P = 0.03) and "reducing risk of diabetes-related kidney disease" (50.0% vs. 11.8%, respectively; P = 0.03) as most meaningful outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The measures "reducing risk of heart attacks" and "reducing A1c levels" were identified as top priority diabetes outcome measures.

DISCLOSURES

Express Scripts provided research funding for this study to the UPMC Center for Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives. Henderson is employed by Express Scripts and was involved in the conception and design of the study and manuscript approval. The other authors are employed by the UPMC Center for Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives and have nothing to disclose.

Gaps in Knowledge and the Need for Patient-Partners in Research Related to Physical Activity and Type 1 Diabetes: A Narrative Review

Regular physical activity (PA) is a cornerstone in the management of complications associated with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Most national guidelines advocate for regular PA for persons living with T1D, however the evidence to support these recommendations has not be reviewed recently. Additionally, in an era of patient-centered care and patient oriented research, the role of patient partners in the area of PA and T1D interventions has never been explored. The purpose of this narrative review is to overcome these two gaps in the literature. Here we review selected epidemiological evidence and identify gaps in research that would add important information to guide practitioners and future guidelines. We also provide an overview of patient-oriented research projects co-developed with persons living with T1D. Significant gaps in the field include: (1) a lack of adequately powered prospective cohort studies using serial measures of PA and hard chronic disease end-points; (2) no multi-centered, highly powered, randomized controlled trials of PA, and long-term health outcomes; (3) little data on the role of new technologies to support PA-related behavior change, and (4) no trials that involved patients in the design and execution of PA-based clinical trials. This review provides a template for scientists and patient partners to develop future research priorities and agendas in the field.

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.