Methods for conducting international Delphi surveys to optimise global participation in core outcome set development: a case study in gastric cancer informed by a comprehensive literature review

Catalysing global surgery: a meta-research study on factors affecting surgical research collaborations with Africa

INTRODUCTION

In December 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgent need for rapid collaboration, research, and interventions. International research collaborations foster more significant responses to rapid global changes by enabling international, multicentre research, decreasing biases, and increasing study validity while reducing overall research time and costs. However, there has been low uptake of collaborative research by African institutions and individuals.

AIM

To systematically review facilitating factors and challenges to collaborative surgical research studies conducted in Africa.

METHODOLOGY

A meta-research review using PubMed®/MEDLINE and Embase on surgical collaboration in Africa from 1st of January 2011 to 31st of September 2021 in accordance to PRISMA guidelines. Surgical studies by collaborative groups involving African authors and sites were included (55 papers). Data on the study period, geographical regions, and research scope, facilitating factors, and challenges were extracted from the studies retrieved from the search.

RESULTS

Most of the collaborations in Africa occurred with European institutions (76%). Of the 54 African countries, 63% (34/54) participated in surgical collaborations. The highest collaboration frequency occurred in South Africa (11%) and Nigeria (8%). However, most publications originated from Eastern Africa (43%). Leveraging synergies between high- and low- to middle-income countries (LMICs), well-defined structures, and secure data platforms facilitated collaboration. However, the underrepresentation of collaborators from LMICs was a significant challenge.

CONCLUSION

Available literature provides critical insights into the facilitating factors and challenges of research collaboration with Africa. However, there is a need for a detailed prospective study to explore the themes highlighted further.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022352115 .

Development of core outcome sets for studies relating to awareness and clinical management of reduced fetal movement

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to create core outcome sets (COSs) for use in research studies relating to the awareness and clinical management of reduced fetal movement (RFM).

DESIGN

Delphi survey and consensus process.

SETTING

International.

POPULATION

A total of 128 participants (40 parents, 19 researchers and 65 clinicians) from 16 countries.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify outcomes in studies of interventions relating to the awareness and the clinical management of RFM. Using these outcomes as a preliminary list, stakeholders rated the importance of these outcomes for inclusion in COSs for studies of: (i) awareness of RFM; and (ii) clinical management of RFM.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Preliminary lists of outcomes were discussed at consensus meetings where two COSs (one for studies of RFM awareness and one for studies of clinical management of RFM).

RESULTS

The first round of the Delphi survey was completed by 128 participants, 66% of whom (n = 84) completed all three rounds. Fifty outcomes identified by the systematic review, after multiple definitions were combined, were voted on in round one. Two outcomes were added in round one, and as such 52 outcomes were voted on in two lists in rounds two and three. The COSs for studies of RFM awareness and clinical management are comprised of eight outcomes (four maternal and four neonatal) and 10 outcomes (two maternal and eight neonatal), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These COSs provide researchers with the minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported in studies relating to the awareness and the clinical management of RFM.

Does surgeon specialization add value to surgeon volume in gastric cancer surgery?

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the combined impact of surgeon specialization and surgeon volume on both short- and long-term outcomes in patients underwent curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

Patients with cStage1-3 gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent curative-intent surgery between January 2010 and December 2020 were evaluated. The impact of surgeon specialization and surgeon volume on clinical outcomes was scrutinized, both individually and in combination. For the purpose of assessing the combined effect, surgeons were classified into three groups: Non-specialized low-volume (NS-low), non-specialized high-volume (NS-high), and specialized high-volume (S-high). Postoperative outcomes and survival were evaluated. The adjusted effect sizes were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Total of 537 patients operated by twelve surgeons were included in the analysis. For all cohort, the 30d-, in-hospital and 90d-mortality were 3.5%, 3%, and 6.3%, respectively. High surgeon volume alone had a significant impact (OR: 0.31 [0.10-0.82, p = 0.023]) on 30-day mortality. However, upon evaluating the combined effects of the parameters, while the most favorable 30-day mortality rate was observed in the S-high group, neither the NS-low group (OR: 3.82 [1.10-18.17, p = 0.054]) nor the NS-high group (OR: 1.37 [0.23-8.37, p = 0.724]) demonstrated a statistically significant difference when compared to the S-high group. The NS-low group showed poor results for several types of postoperative outcomes. In terms of overall survival, the S-high group outperformed, while the NS-low and NS-high groups presented with notably worse outcomes (HRs: 2.04 [1.51-2.75, p < 0.001], and 1.75 [1.25-2.44, p = 0.001], respectively).

CONCLUSION

The primary factor influencing short-term outcomes for patients who underwent gastric cancer surgery was found to be surgeon volume, while specialization provided a limited additional value. However, specialization emerges as an independent factor with a greater contribution to long-term survival than the impact attributed to high-volume.

Development of the Preferred Components for Co-Design in Research Guideline and Checklist: Protocol for a Scoping Review and a Modified Delphi Process

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence that co-design can lead to more engaging, acceptable, relevant, feasible, and even effective interventions. However, no guidance is provided on the specific designs and associated methods or methodologies involved in the process. We propose the development of the Preferred Components for Co-design in Research (PRECISE) guideline to enhance the consistency, transparency, and quality of reporting co-design studies used to develop complex health interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The aim is to develop the first iteration of the PRECISE guideline. The purpose of the PRECISE guideline is to improve the consistency, transparency, and quality of reporting on studies that use co-design to develop complex health interventions.

METHODS

The aim will be achieved by addressing the following objectives: to review and synthesize the literature on the models, theories, and frameworks used in the co-design of complex health interventions to identify their common elements (components, values or principles, associated methods and methodologies, and outcomes); and by using the results of the scoping review, prioritize the co-design components, values or principles, associated methods and methodologies, and outcomes to be included in the PRECISE guideline.

RESULTS

The project has been funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

CONCLUSIONS

The collective results of this project will lead to a ready-to-implement PRECISE guideline that outlines a minimum set of items to include when reporting the co-design of complex health interventions. The PRECISE guideline will improve the consistency, transparency, and quality of reports of studies. Additionally, it will include guidance on how to enact or enable the values or principles of co-design for meaningful and collaborative solutions (interventions). PRECISE might also be used by peer reviewers and editors to improve the review of manuscripts involving co-design. Ultimately, the PRECISE guideline will facilitate more efficient use of new results about complex health intervention development and bring better returns on research investments.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/50463.

One step at a time. Shaping consensus on research priorities and terminology in telehealth in musculoskeletal pain: an international modified e-Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Telehealth has emerged as an alternative model for treatment delivery and has become an important component of health service delivery. However, there is inconsistency in the use of terminologies and a lack of research priorities in telehealth in musculoskeletal pain. The purpose of this international, multidisciplinary expert panel assembled in a modified three-round e-Delphi survey is to achieve a consensus on research priorities and for the standard terminology for musculoskeletal pain telehealth practice.

METHODS

In this international modified e-Delphi survey, we invited an expert panel consisting of researchers, clinicians, consumer representatives, industry partners, healthcare managers, and policymakers to participate in a three-round e-Delphi. Expert panels were identified through the Expertscape website, PubMed database, social media, and a snowball approach. In Round 1, potential research priorities and terminologies were presented to panel members. Panel members rated the agreement of each research priority on a 5-point Likert scale and an 11-point numerical scale, and each terminology on a 5-point Likert scale for the "telehealth in musculoskeletal pain " field over rounds. At least 80% of the panel members were required to agree to be deemed a consensus. We analyzed the data descriptively and assessed the stability of the results using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test.

RESULTS

We performed an international e-Delphi survey from February to August 2022. Of 694 invited people, 160 panel members participated in the first round, 133 in the second round (83% retention), and 134 in the third round (84% retention). Most of the panel members were researchers 76 (47%), clinicians 57 (36%), and consumer representatives 9 (6%) of both genders especially from Brazil 31 (19%), India 22 (14%), and Australia 19 (12%) in the first round. The panel identified fourteen telehealth research priorities spanned topics including the development of strategies using information and communication technology, telehealth implementation services, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions, equity of telehealth interventions, qualitative research and eHealth literacy in musculoskeletal pain conditions from an initial list of 20 research priorities. The consensus was reached for "digital health" and "telehealth" as standard terminologies from an initial list of 37 terminologies.

CONCLUSION

An international, multidisciplinary expert consensus recommends that future research should consider the 14 research priorities for telehealth musculoskeletal pain reached. Additionally, the terms digital health and telehealth as the most appropriate terminologies to be used in musculoskeletal telehealth research.

REGISTER

Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/tqmz2/ ).

A core outcome set for lower limb orthopaedic surgery for children with cerebral palsy: An international multi-stakeholder consensus study

AIM

To develop a core set of outcome domains to be measured in clinical studies on lower limb orthopaedic surgery for ambulant children with cerebral palsy (CP) that represents the priorities of an international multi-stakeholder group (children, parent/carers, and health professionals).

METHOD

Potential outcome domains were identified through literature review and qualitative interviews with key stakeholders. These were scored in an international two-round Delphi survey, using a 9-point Likert scale. A final consensus meeting with key stakeholders agreed on the most important outcome domains and refined the core outcome set (COS).

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-one health professionals and 36 individuals with CP and their parents/carers rated 21 of 41 outcomes as important in the Delphi survey. The final consensus group agreed 19 outcomes within eight domains to be included in the final COS: pain and fatigue, lower limb structure, motor function, mobility (daily life activities), gait-related outcomes, physical activity, independence, and quality of life.

INTERPRETATION

A COS for lower limb orthopaedic surgery for children with CP was developed. Incorporating this in the design of future clinical studies will provide a more holistic assessment of the impact of treatment while allowing meaningful comparisons and future synthesis of results from primary studies.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

Eight core outcome domains were identified as important to measure in future clinical research. Key stakeholders perceived pain, balance and fall, and independence as very important outcomes. Six contextual factors were identified as essential in surgical decision-making.

The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study: International consensus on outcome measures for trials of interventions for adults with single-sided deafness

Background

Single-sided deafness (SSD) has functional, psychological, and social consequences. Interventions for adults with SSD include hearing aids and auditory implants. Benefits and harms (outcome domains) of these interventions are until now reported inconsistently in clinical trials. Inconsistency in reporting outcome measures prevents meaningful comparisons or syntheses of trial results. The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) international initiative used structured communication techniques to achieve consensus among healthcare users and professionals working in the field of SSD. The novel contribution is a set of core outcome domains that experts agree are critically important to assess in all clinical trials of SSD interventions.

Methods

A long list of candidate outcome domains compiled from a systematic review and published qualitative data, informed the content of a two-round online Delphi survey. Overall, 308 participants from 29 countries were enrolled. Of those, 233 participants completed both rounds of the survey and scored each outcome domain on a 9-point scale. The set of core outcome domains was finalised via a web-based consensus meeting with 12 participants. Votes involved all stakeholder groups, with an approximate 2:1 ratio of professionals to healthcare users participating in the Delphi survey, and a 1:1 ratio participating in the consensus meeting.

Results

The first round of the survey listed 44 potential outcome domains, organised thematically. A further five outcome domains were included in Round 2 based on participant feedback. The structured voting at round 2 identified 17 candidate outcome domains which were voted on at the consensus meeting. Consensus was reached for a core outcome domain set including three outcome domains: spatial orientation, group conversations in noisy social situations, and impact on social situations. Seventy-seven percent of the remaining Delphi participants agreed with this core outcome domain set.

Conclusions

Adoption of the internationally agreed core outcome domain set would promote consistent assessment and reporting of outcomes that are meaningful and important to all relevant stakeholders. This consistency will in turn enable comparison of outcomes reported across clinical trials comparing SSD interventions in adults and reduce research waste. Further research will determine how those outcome domains should best be measured.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06702-1.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for stillbirth care research (iCHOOSE Study)

INTRODUCTION

Stillbirth is associated with significant physical, psychosocial and economic consequences for parents, families, wider society and the healthcare system. There is emerging momentum to design and evaluate interventions for care after stillbirth and in subsequent pregnancies. However, there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice compounded by inconsistent outcome reporting in research studies. To address this paucity of evidence, we plan to develop a core outcome set for stillbirth care research, through an international consensus process with key stakeholders including parents, healthcare professionals and researchers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The development of this core outcome set will be divided into five distinct phases: (1) Identifying potential outcomes from a mixed-methods systematic review and analysis of interviews with parents who have experienced stillbirth; (2) Creating a comprehensive outcome long-list and piloting of a Delphi questionnaire using think-aloud interviews; (3) Choosing the most important outcomes by conducting an international two-round Delphi survey including high-income, middle-income and low-income countries; (4) Deciding the core outcome set by consensus meetings with key stakeholders and (5) Dissemination and promotion of the core outcome set. A parent and public involvement panel and international steering committee has been convened to coproduce every stage of the development of this core outcome set.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for the qualitative interviews has been approved by Berkshire Ethics Committee REC Reference 12/SC/0495. Ethical approval for the think-aloud interviews, Delphi survey and consensus meetings has been awarded from the University of Bristol Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 116535). The dissemination strategy is being developed with the parent and public involvement panel and steering committee. Results will be published in peer-reviewed specialty journals, shared at national and international conferences and promoted through parent organisations and charities.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018087748.