Dataset Information

Redesigning a Web-Based Stakeholder Consensus Meeting About Core Outcomes for Clinical Trials: Formative Feedback Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinical trials that assess the benefits and harms of an intervention do so by measuring and reporting outcomes. Inconsistent selection and diversity in the choice of outcomes make it challenging to directly compare interventions. To achieve an agreed core set of outcomes, a consensus methodology is recommended, comprising a web-based Delphi survey and a face-to-face consensus meeting. However, UK government regulations to control the pandemic prohibited plans for a face-to-face consensus meeting as part of the Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the modifications made by the CROSSSD study team to achieve consensus using web-based methods, but with minimal deviation from the original study protocol.

Methods

The study team worked with health care users and professionals to translate the planned face-to-face consensus meeting in a web-based format, preserving the key elements of the nominal group technique. A follow-up survey gathered evaluation feedback on the experiences of the 22 participating members. Feedback covered premeeting preparation, the process of facilitated discussions and voting, ability to contribute, and perceived fairness of the outcome.

Results

Overall, 98% (53/54) of feedback responses agreed or strongly agreed with the statements given, indicating that the web-based meeting achieved its original goals of open discussion, debate, and voting to agree with a core outcome set for single-sided deafness. Hearing-impaired participants were fully engaged, but there were some methodological challenges. For the participants, challenges included building rapport, understanding, and delivering the tasks in hand. For the study team, challenges included the need for thorough preparation and management of the unpredictability of tasks on the day.

Conclusions

Sharing our experiences and lessons learned can benefit future core outcome set developers. Overcoming the challenges of delivering a web-based consensus exercise in the face of the pandemic can be applied more generally to maximize inclusiveness, enhance geographical access, and reduce research costs.

SUBMITTER: Katiri R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8414289 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common acute leukemia in adults and has an unacceptably low cure rate. In recent years, a number of new treatment strategies and compounds were developed for the treatment of AML. There were several randomized controlled clinical trials with the objective to improve patients' management and patients' outcome in AML. Unfortunately, these trials are not always directly comparable since they do not measure the same outcomes, and currently there are no core outcome sets that can be used to guide outcome selection and harmonization in this disease area. The HARMONY (Healthcare Alliance for Resourceful Medicine Offensive against Neoplasms in Hematology) Alliance is a public-private European network established in 2017 and currently includes 53 partners and 32 associated members from 22 countries. Amongst many other goals of the HARMONY Alliance, Work Package 2 focuses on defining outcomes that are relevant to each hematological malignancy. Accordingly, this pilot study will be performed to define a core outcome set in AML. METHODS:The pilot study will use a three-round Delphi survey and a final consensus meeting to define a core outcome set. Participants will be recruited from different stakeholder groups, including patients, clinicians, regulators and members of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. At the pre-Delphi stage, a literature research was conducted followed by several semi-structured interviews of clinical public and private key opinion leaders. Subsequently, the preliminary outcome list was discussed in several multi-stakeholder face-to-face meetings. The Delphi survey will reduce the preliminary outcome list to essential core outcomes. After completion of the last Delphi round, a final face-to-face meeting is planned to achieve consensus about the core outcome set in AML. DISCUSSION:As part of the HARMONY Alliance, the pilot Delphi aims to define a core outcome set in AML on the basis of a multi-stakeholder consensus. Such a core outcome set will help to allow consistent comparison of future clinical trials and real-world evidence research and ensures that appropriate outcomes valued by a range of stakeholders are measured within future trials.

Project description:PurposeHospital policies forbidding or limiting families from visiting relatives on the intensive care unit (ICU) has affected patients, families, healthcare professionals, and patient- and family-centered care (PFCC). We sought to refine evidence-informed consensus statements to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies during the current COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics and to identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation and sustained uptake in Canadian ICUs.MethodsWe created consensus statements from 36 evidence-informed experiences (i.e., impacts on patients, families, healthcare professionals, and PFCC) and 63 evidence-informed strategies (i.e., ways to improve restricted visitation) identified during a modified Delphi process (described elsewhere). Over two half-day virtual meetings on 7 and 8 April 2021, 45 stakeholders (patients, families, researchers, clinicians, decision-makers) discussed and refined these consensus statements. Through qualitative descriptive content analysis, we evaluated the following points for 99 consensus statements: 1) their importance for improving restricted visitation policies; 2) suggested modifications to make them more applicable; and 3) facilitators and barriers to implementing these statements when creating ICU visitation policies.ResultsThrough discussion, participants identified three areas for improvement: 1) clarity, 2) accessibility, and 3) feasibility. Stakeholders identified several implementation facilitators (clear, flexible, succinct, and prioritized statements available in multiple modes), barriers (perceived lack of flexibility, lack of partnership between government and hospital, change fatigue), and ways to measure and monitor their use (e.g., family satisfaction, qualitative interviews).ConclusionsExisting guidance on policies that disallowed or restricted visitation in intensive care units were confusing, hard to operationalize, and often lacked supporting evidence. Prioritized, succinct, and clear consensus statements allowing for local adaptability are necessary to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies and to optimize PFCC.

Project description:BackgroundFocal therapy as a treatment option for localized prostate cancer (PCa) is an increasingly popular and rapidly evolving field.ObjectiveTo gather expert opinion on patient selection, interventions, and meaningful outcome measures for focal therapy in clinical practice and trial design.Design, setting, and participantsFifteen experts in focal therapy followed a modified two-stage RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methodology process. All participants independently scored 246 statements prior to rescoring at a face-to-face meeting. The meeting occurred in June 2013 at the Royal Society of Medicine, London, supported by the Wellcome Trust and the UK Department of Health.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisAgreement, disagreement, or uncertainty were calculated as the median panel score. Consensus was derived from the interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry level.Results and limitationsOf 246 statements, 154 (63%) reached consensus. Items of agreement included the following: patients with intermediate risk and patients with unifocal and multifocal PCa are eligible for focal treatment; magnetic resonance imaging-targeted or template-mapping biopsy should be used to plan treatment; planned treatment margins should be 5mm from the known tumor; prostate volume or age should not be a primary determinant of eligibility; foci of indolent cancer can be left untreated when treating the dominant index lesion; histologic outcomes should be defined by targeted biopsy at 1 yr; residual disease in the treated area of ≤3 mm of Gleason 3+3 did not need further treatment; and focal retreatment rates of ≤20% should be considered clinically acceptable but subsequent whole-gland therapy deemed a failure of focal therapy. All statements are expert opinion and therefore constitute level 5 evidence and may not reflect wider clinical consensus.ConclusionsThe landscape of PCa treatment is rapidly evolving with new treatment technologies. This consensus meeting provides guidance to clinicians on current expert thinking in the field of focal therapy.Patient summaryIn this report we present expert opinion on patient selection, interventions, and meaningful outcomes for clinicians working in focal therapy for prostate cancer.