Dataset Information

Core Health Outcomes in Childhood Epilepsy (CHOICE): Development of a core outcome set using systematic review methods and a Delphi survey consensus.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Establishing a core set of outcomes to be evaluated and reported in intervention trials aims to improve the usefulness of health research. There is no established core outcome set (COS) for childhood epilepsies. The aim of this study was to select a COS to be used in evaluative research of interventions for children with rolandic epilepsy (RE). METHODS:We followed guidance from the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative. First, we identified outcomes that had been measured in research through a systematic review. Second, young people with RE, parents, and professionals were invited to take part in a Delphi survey in which participants rated the importance of candidate outcomes. Last, a face-to-face meeting was convened to seek consensus on which outcomes were critical to include and to ratify the final COS. RESULTS:From 37 eligible papers in the review, we identified and included 48 candidate outcomes in the survey. We sent invitations to 165 people registered to take part in the survey; of these, 102 (62%) completed Round 1, and 80 (78%) completed Round 2 (three young people, 16 parents, 61 professionals). In Round 2 we included four additional outcomes suggested by participants in Round 1. The consensus meeting included two young people, four parents, and nine professionals who were eligible to vote and ratified the COS as 39 outcomes across 10 domains. SIGNIFICANCE:Our methodology was a proportionate and pragmatic approach toward producing a COS for evaluating research on interventions aiming to improve the health of children with RE.

SUBMITTER: Crudgington H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6563436 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Core Health Outcomes in Childhood Epilepsy (CHOICE): Development of a core outcome set using systematic review methods and a Delphi survey consensus.

Crudgington Holly H Rogers Morwenna M Bray Lucy L Carter Bernie B Currier Janet J Dunkley Colin C Gibbon Frances M FM Hughes Dyfrig D Lyle Samantha S Roberts Deborah D Tudur Smith Catrin C Gringras Paul P Pal Deb K DK Morris Christopher C

Epilepsia 20190425 5

<h4>Objective</h4>Establishing a core set of outcomes to be evaluated and reported in intervention trials aims to improve the usefulness of health research. There is no established core outcome set (COS) for childhood epilepsies. The aim of this study was to select a COS to be used in evaluative research of interventions for children with rolandic epilepsy (RE).<h4>Methods</h4>We followed guidance from the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative. First, we identified out ...[more]

PMID: 31021436

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDelphi surveys are commonly used to prioritise critical outcomes in core outcome set (COS) development. This trial aims to compare a three-round (Multi-Round) Delphi (MRD) with a Real-Time Delphi (RTD) in the prioritisation of outcomes for inclusion in a COS for neonatal encephalopathy treatments and explore whether 'feedback', 'iteration', and 'initial condition' effects may occur in the two survey methods.MethodsWe recruited 269 participants (parents/caregivers, healthcare providers and researchers/academics) of which 222 were randomised to either the MRD or the RTD. We investigated the outcomes prioritised in each survey and the 'feedback', 'iteration', and 'initial condition' effects to identify differences between the two survey methods.ResultsIn the RTD, n = 92 participants (83%) fully completed the survey. In the MRD, n = 60 participants (54%) completed all three rounds. Of the 92 outcomes presented, 26 (28%) were prioritised differently between the RTD and MRD. Significantly fewer participants amended their scores when shown stakeholder responses in the RTD compared to the MRD ('feedback effect'). The 'iteration effect' analysis found most experts appeared satisfied with their initial ratings in the RTD and did not amend their scores following stakeholder response feedback. Where they did amend their scores, ratings were amended substantially, suggesting greater convergence. Variance in scores reduced with subsequent rounds of the MRD ('iteration effect'). Whilst most participants did not change their initial scores in the RTD, of those that did, later recruits tended to align their final score more closely to the group mean final score than earlier recruits (an 'initial condition' effect).ConclusionThe feedback effect differed between the two Delphi methods but the magnitude of this difference was small and likely due to the large number of observations rather than because of a meaningfully large difference. It did not appear to be advantageous to require participants to engage in three rounds of a survey due to the low change in scores. Larger drop-out through successive rounds in the MRD, together with a lesser convergence of scores and longer time to completion, indicate considerable benefits of the RTD approach.Trial registrationNCT04471103. Registered on 14 July 2020.

Project description:ObjectiveThe objectives of the study were to (1) map questions in epilepsy-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of children's health-related quality of life (HRQoL) to a proposed core outcome set (COS) for childhood epilepsy research and (2) gain insight into the acceptability of two leading candidate PROMs.MethodWe identified 11 epilepsy-specific PROMs of children's HRQoL (17 questionnaire versions) in a previous systematic review. Each item from the PROMs was mapped to 38 discrete outcomes across 10 domains of the COS: seizures, sleep, social functioning, mental health, cognition, physical functioning, behavior, adverse events, family life, and global quality of life. We consulted with three children with epilepsy and six parents of children with epilepsy in Patient Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) work to gain an understanding of the acceptability of the two leading PROMs from our review of measurement properties: Quality of Life in Childhood Epilepsy (QOLCE-55) and Health-Related Quality of Life Measure for Children with Epilepsy (CHEQOL).ResultsSocial Functioning is covered by all PROMs except DISABKIDS and G-QOLCE and Mental Health is covered by all PROMs except G-QOLCE and Hague Restrictions in Childhood Epilepsy Scale (HARCES). Only two PROMs (Epilepsy and Learning Disability Quality of Life (ELDQOL) and Glasgow Epilepsy Outcome Scale (GEOS-YP)) have items that cover the Seizure domain. The QOLCE-55 includes items that cover the domains of Physical Functioning, Social Functioning, Behavior, Mental Health, and Cognition. The CHEQOL parent and child versions cover the same domains as QOLCE-55 except for Physical Functioning and Behavior, and the child version has one item that covers the discrete outcome of Overall Quality of Life and one item that covers the discrete outcome of Relationship with parents and siblings. The QOLCE-55 parent version was acceptable to the parents we consulted with, and CHEQOL parent and child versions were described as acceptable to our child and parent advisory panel members.SignificanceMapping items from existing epilepsy-specific PROMs for children is an important step in operationalizing our COS for childhood epilepsy research, alongside evaluation of their measurement properties. Two leading PROMS, QOLCE-55 and CHEQOL, cover a wide range of domains from our COS and would likely be used in conjunction with assessment tools selected for specific study objectives. The PPIE work provided practical insights into the administration and acceptability of candidate PROMs in appropriate context. We promote our COS as a framework for selecting outcomes and PROMs for future childhood epilepsy evaluative research.

Project description:Introduction: Outcome measures are key to tailor rehabilitation goals to the stroke patient's individual needs and to monitor poststroke recovery. The large number of available outcome measures leads to high variability in clinical use. Currently, an internationally agreed core set of motor outcome measures for clinical application is lacking. Therefore, the goal was to develop such a set to serve as a quality standard in clinical motor rehabilitation poststroke. Methods: Outcome measures for the upper and lower extremities, and activities of daily living (ADL)/stroke-specific outcomes were identified and presented to stroke rehabilitation experts in an electronic Delphi study. In round 1, clinical feasibility and relevance of the outcome measures were rated on a 7-point Likert scale. In round 2, those rated at least as "relevant" and "feasible" were ranked within the body functions, activities, and participation domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). Furthermore, measurement time points poststroke were indicated. In round 3, answers were reviewed in reference to overall results to reach final consensus. Results: In total, 119 outcome measures were presented to 33 experts from 18 countries. The recommended core set includes the Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment and Action Research Arm Test for the upper extremity section; the Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment, 10-m Walk Test, Timed-Up-and-Go, and Berg Balance Scale for the lower extremity section; and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, and Barthel Index or Functional Independence Measure for the ADL/stroke-specific section. The Stroke Impact Scale was recommended spanning all ICF domains. Recommended measurement time points are days 2 ± 1 and 7; weeks 2, 4, and 12; 6 months poststroke and every following 6th month. Discussion and Conclusion: Agreement was found upon a set of nine outcome measures for application in clinical motor rehabilitation poststroke, with seven measurement time points following the stages of poststroke recovery. This core set was specifically developed for clinical practice and distinguishes itself from initiatives for stroke rehabilitation research. The next challenge is to implement this clinical core set across the full stroke care continuum with the aim to improve the transparency, comparability, and quality of stroke rehabilitation at a regional, national, and international level.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There are numerous challenges in including patients in a core outcome set (COS) study, these can vary depending on the patient group. This study describes current efforts to include patients in the development of COS, with the aim of identifying areas for further improvement and study. METHODS:Using the COMET database, corresponding authors of COS projects registered or published from 1 January 2013 to 2 February 2017 were invited via a personalised email to participate in a short online survey. The survey and emails were constructed to maximise the response rate by following the academic literature on enhancing survey responses. Personalised reminder emails were sent to non-responders. This survey explored the frequency of patient input in COS studies, who was involved, what methods were used and whether or not the COS development was international. RESULTS:One hundred and ninety-two COS developers were sent the survey. Responses were collected from 21 February 2017 until 7 May 2017. One hundred and forty-six unique developers responded, yielding a 76% response rate and data in relation to 195 unique COSs (as some developers had worked on multiple COSs). Of focus here are their responses regarding 162 COSs at the published, completed or ongoing stages of development. Inclusion of patient participants was indicated in 87% (141/162) of COSs in the published completed or ongoing stages and over 94% (65/69) of ongoing COS projects. Nearly half (65/135) of COSs included patient participants from two or more countries and 22% (30/135) included patient participants from five or more countries. The Delphi survey was reported as being used singularly or in combination with other methods in 85% (119/140) of projects. Almost a quarter (16/65) of ongoing studies reported using a combination of qualitative interviews, Delphi survey and consensus meeting. CONCLUSIONS:These findings indicated that the Delphi survey is the most popular method of facilitating patient participation, while the combination of qualitative interviews, Delphi survey and consensus meetings is the most popular combination of methods. The increased inclusion of patient participants in the development of COSs is encouraging, as is the international approach to COS development that some developers are adopting.

Dataset Information

Core Health Outcomes in Childhood Epilepsy (CHOICE): Development of a core outcome set using systematic review methods and a Delphi survey consensus.

Publications

Core Health Outcomes in Childhood Epilepsy (CHOICE): Development of a core outcome set using systematic review methods and a Delphi survey consensus.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets