Dataset Information

A review of patient and carer participation and the use of qualitative research in the development of core outcome sets.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To be meaningful, a core outcome set (COS) should be relevant to all stakeholders including patients and carers. This review aimed to explore the methods by which patients and carers have been included as participants in COS development exercises and, in particular, the use and reporting of qualitative methods.

Methods

In August 2015, a search of the Core Outcomes Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database was undertaken to identify papers involving patients and carers in COS development. Data were extracted to identify the data collection methods used in COS development, the number of health professionals, patients and carers participating in these, and the reported details of qualitative research undertaken.

Results

Fifty-nine papers reporting patient and carer participation were included in the review, ten of which reported using qualitative methods. Although patients and carers participated in outcome elicitation for inclusion in COS processes, health professionals tended to dominate the prioritisation exercises. Of the ten qualitative papers, only three were reported as a clear pre-designed part of a COS process. Qualitative data were collected using interviews, focus groups or a combination of these. None of the qualitative papers reported an underpinning methodological framework and details regarding data saturation, reflexivity and resource use associated with data collection were often poorly reported. Five papers reported difficulty in achieving a diverse sample of participants and two reported that a large and varied range of outcomes were often identified by participants making subsequent rating and ranking difficult.

Conclusions

Consideration of the best way to include patients and carers throughout the COS development process is needed. Additionally, further work is required to assess the potential role of qualitative methods in COS, to explore the knowledge produced by different qualitative data collection methods, and to evaluate the time and resources required to incorporate qualitative methods into COS development.

SUBMITTER: Jones JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5354261 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A review of patient and carer participation and the use of qualitative research in the development of core outcome sets.

Jones Janet E JE Jones Laura L LL Keeley Thomas J H TJ Calvert Melanie J MJ Mathers Jonathan J

PloS one 20170316 3

<h4>Background</h4>To be meaningful, a core outcome set (COS) should be relevant to all stakeholders including patients and carers. This review aimed to explore the methods by which patients and carers have been included as participants in COS development exercises and, in particular, the use and reporting of qualitative methods.<h4>Methods</h4>In August 2015, a search of the Core Outcomes Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database was undertaken to identify papers involving patients and ...[more]

PMID: 28301485

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient/carer involvement in palliative care research has been reported as complex, difficult and less advanced compared to other areas of health and social care research. There is seemingly limited evidence on impact and effectiveness. AIM:To examine the evidence regarding patient/carer involvement in palliative care research and identify the facilitators, barriers, impacts and gaps in the evidence base. DESIGN:Qualitative evidence synthesis using an integrative review approach and thematic analysis. DATA SOURCES:Electronic databases were searched up to March 2018. Additional methods included searching websites and ongoing/unpublished studies, author searching and contacting experts. Eligibility criteria were based on the SPICE (Setting, Perspective, Intervention, Comparison, Evaluation) framework. Two quality assessments on methodology and involvement were undertaken. RESULTS:A total of 93 records were included. Eight main themes were identified, mainly concerning facilitators and barriers to effective patient and carer involvement in palliative care research: definitions/roles, values/principles, organisations/culture, training/support, networking/groups, perspectives/diversity, relationships/communication and emotions/impact. Evidence on the impact of involvement was limited, but when carried out effectively, involvement brought positive benefits for all concerned, improving the relevance and quality of research. Evidence gaps were found in non-cancer populations and collaborative/user-led involvement. CONCLUSION:Evidence identified suggests that involvement in palliative care research is challenging, but not dissimilar to that elsewhere. The facilitators and barriers identified relate mainly to the conduct of researchers at an individual level; in particular, there exists a reluctance among professionals to undertake involvement, and myths still perpetuate that patients/carers do not want to be involved. A developed infrastructure, more involvement-friendly organisational cultures and a strengthening of the evidence base would also be beneficial.

Project description:BackgroundLife 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsFrom 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".ConclusionThis 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.ImpactWe 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.

Project description:BackgroundCore outcome sets (COS) have the potential to reduce waste in research by improving the consistency of outcomes measured in trials of the same health condition. However, this reduction in waste will only be realised through the uptake of COS by clinical trialists. Without uptake, the continued development of COS that are not implemented may add to waste in research. Funders of clinical trials have the potential to have an impact on COS uptake by recommending their use to those applying for funding. The aim of our study was to assess the extent to which applicants followed the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme's recommendation to search for a COS to include in their clinical trial.Methods and findingsWe examined the outcomes section and detailed project descriptions of all 95 researcher-led primary research applications submitted to the NIHR HTA between January 2012, when the recommendation to search for a COS was included in the guidance for applicants, and December 2015 for evidence that a search for a COS had taken place and rationale for outcome choice in the absence of COS. A survey of applicants was conducted to further explore their use of COS and choice of outcomes with a response rate of 49%. Nine out of 95 applicants (10%) stated in their application that they had searched the COMET (Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials) Initiative database for a COS and another nine referred to searching for a COS using another method, e.g. a review of the literature. Of the 77 (81%) applicants that did not mention COMET or COS in their application, eight stated in the survey that they had searched the COMET database and ten carried out a search using another method. Some applicants who did not search for a COS gave reasons for their choice of outcomes including taking advice from patients and the public and choosing outcomes used in previous trials.ConclusionA funding body can have an impact on COS uptake by encouraging trialists to search for a COS. Funders could take further steps by putting processes in place to prompt applicants to be explicit about searching for COS in their application and notifying the funding board if a search has not taken place. The sources of information used by trialists to make decisions about outcomes in the absence of COS may suggest methods of dissemination for COS.

Project description:BackgroundCore outcome sets (COS) are lists of consensus-determined outcomes to be measured and reported in all clinical research studies within a disease area. While including patients and families in COS development to improve their relevance and applicability to patient values is key, there is limited literature documenting practical barriers and facilitators to successful patient engagement in COS development. In this paper, as researchers and patient partners, we provide a resource for COS developers to meaningfully and effectively engage patients and families.Main bodyTo establish a consensus-based COS for children with two inherited metabolic diseases (medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency and phenylketonuria), we conducted an evidence review, Delphi survey, and workshop. Two adult patient partner co-investigators co-developed the study protocol, co-designed strategies to address challenges with incorporating patient perspectives, and led all patient engagement activities, including communication with a group of family advisors. Seven adult family advisors received training about COS development and subsequently contributed to Delphi survey development, outcome definitions, the consensus workshop, and selection of outcome measurement instruments. Patient partner co-investigators and family advisors were essential to the successful design, conduct, and completion of the two COS. Patient partner co-investigators supported the understanding, inclusion and engagement of family advisors, and helped develop accessible tools to determine patient-oriented outcome measurement instruments. Patient partner co-investigators and family advisors collaborated with the study team to co-develop surveys, modify technical language, and recruit participants to the study. Together, we addressed challenges to patient engagement in COS development such as unfamiliarity with study methods, comprehensibility of materials and ongoing engagement, and power imbalances between team members.ConclusionOur approach to patient and family engagement in COS development for two rare conditions for children was feasible and considered valuable by all study team members, including patients and family members, in improving the relevance of the deliverable to patients. This approach to patient engagement in developing COS can be applied to other paediatric disease contexts, allowing patient and family perspectives to influence the direction of future studies to develop COS.

Project description:BackgroundCore outcome sets (COS) are standardised sets of outcomes, which represent the minimum outcomes that should be measured and reported in clinical trials. COS can enhance comparability across health trials by reducing heterogeneity of outcome measurement and reporting and potentially minimising selective outcome reporting. Examining what researchers involved in trials know and think about COS is essential to increase awareness and promote COS uptake. The aim of this study is therefore to examine clinical trialists' knowledge, perceptions and experiences of COS.MethodsAn online survey design was used. Participants were clinical trialists, operationalised for the current study as researchers named as the contact person on a trial registered on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Trial repository between 1 January 2019 and 21 July 2020. Survey items assessed clinical trialists' familiarity with and understanding of COS, along with experiences of COS use and development.ResultsOf 1913 clinical trialists contacted to participate, 62 (3%) completed the survey. Forty (65%) participants were familiar with COS and, of those familiar with COS, 21 (55%) had been involved in a trial that used a COS. Of clinical trialists who used COS in a trial(s), less than half (n = 9, 41%) reported that all COS outcomes were used. The main barriers to using COS are poor knowledge about COS (n = 43, 69%) and difficulties identifying relevant COS (n = 42, 68%). Clinical trialists also reported perceptions of COS as restrictive and often containing too many outcomes. The main enablers to using COS are clear understanding (n = 51, 82%) and perceived importance of COS (n = 44, 71%).ConclusionsEnhancing clinical trialists' use of all COS outcomes is needed to reduce outcome heterogeneity and enhance comparability across trial findings. Enhancing awareness of COS importance among researchers and funders is needed to ensure that COS are developed and used by clinical trialists. Education and training may further promote awareness and understanding of COS.

Dataset Information

A review of patient and carer participation and the use of qualitative research in the development of core outcome sets.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A review of patient and carer participation and the use of qualitative research in the development of core outcome sets.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets