Dataset Information

How are trial outcomes prioritised by stakeholders from different regions? Analysis of an international Delphi survey to develop a core outcome set in gastric cancer surgery.

ABSTRACT:

Background

International stakeholder participation is important in the development of core outcome sets (COS). Stakeholders from varying regions may value health outcomes differently. Here, we explore how region, health income and participant characteristics influence prioritisation of outcomes during development of a COS for gastric cancer surgery trials (the GASTROS study).

Methods

952 participants from 55 countries participating in a Delphi survey during COS development were eligible for inclusion. Recruits were grouped according to region (East or West), country income classification (high and low-to-middle income) and other characteristics (e.g. patients; age, sex, time since surgery, mode of treatment, surgical approach and healthcare professionals; clinical experience). Groups were compared with respect to how they categorised 56 outcomes identified as potentially important to include in the final COS ('consensus in', 'consensus out', 'no consensus'). Outcomes categorised as 'consensus in' or 'consensus out' by all 3 stakeholder groups would be automatically included in or excluded from the COS respectively.

Results

In total, 13 outcomes were categorised 'consensus in' (disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, surgery-related death, recurrence of cancer, completeness of tumour removal, overall quality of life, nutritional effects, all-cause complications, intraoperative complications, anaesthetic complications, anastomotic complications, multiple organ failure, and bleeding), 13 'consensus out' and 31 'no consensus'. There was little variation in prioritisation of outcomes by stakeholders from Eastern or Western countries and high or low-to-middle income countries. There was little variation in outcome prioritisation within either health professional or patient groups.

Conclusion

Our study suggests that there is little variation in opinion within stakeholder groups when participant region and other characteristics are considered. This finding may help COS developers when designing their Delphi surveys and recruitment strategies. Further work across other clinical fields is needed before broad recommendations can be made.

SUBMITTER: Alkhaffaf B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8719722 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesA 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).DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesEMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, COMET database and hand-searching.Eligibility criteriaProtocols 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 synthesisDelphi 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsThere 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 numberCRD42019138519.

Project description:IntroductionThe incidence of anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) has increased threefold in the last 30 years. Initial treatment is chemoradiotherapy, associated with short-term and long-term side effects. Future therapy innovations aim to reduce morbidity in treatment of early tumours while maintaining treatment efficacy, and to escalate treatment intensity in locally advanced tumours with acceptable quality of life (QoL). However, all phase III randomised controlled trials to-date have utilised different primary outcomes, which hinders evidence synthesis and presents challenges to the selection of optimal outcomes in future trials. No trial comprehensively assessed long-term side effects and QoL, suggesting outcomes reflecting issues important to patients are under-represented. This project aims to determine the priority outcomes for all stakeholders and reach agreement on a standardised core set of outcomes to be measured and reported on in all future ASCC trials.Methods and analysisA systematic review will identify all outcomes reported in trials and observational studies of chemoradiotherapy as primary treatment for ASCC. Outcomes of importance to patients will be identified through patient interviews. The long list of outcomes generated from the systematic review and interviews will be used to create a two-round Delphi process, including key stakeholders (patients and healthcare professionals). The results of the Delphi will be discussed at a face-to-face consensus meeting. Discussion will focus on outcomes that did not achieve consensus through the Delphi process and conclude with anonymous voting to ratify the final core outcome set (COS).Ethics and disseminationThe final COS will feed directly into the PersonaLising Anal cancer radioTherapy dOse (PLATO) national anal cancer trials and the Association of coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) supported national anal cancer database. Utilisation of the COS will increase the relevance of research output to all stakeholders and increase the capacity for data synthesis between trials. This study has ethical approval and is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative.Trial registration numberPROSPERO registration ID: CRD42016036540.

Project description:BackgroundCore outcome sets (COS) should be relevant to key stakeholders and widely applicable and usable. Ideally, they are developed for international use to allow optimal data synthesis from trials. Electronic Delphi surveys are commonly used to facilitate global participation; however, this has limitations. It is common for these surveys to be conducted in a single language potentially excluding those not fluent in that tongue. The aim of this study is to summarise current approaches for optimising international participation in Delphi studies and make recommendations for future practice.MethodsA comprehensive literature review of current approaches to translating Delphi surveys for COS development was undertaken. A standardised methodology adapted from international guidance derived from 12 major sets of translation guidelines in the field of outcome reporting was developed. As a case study, this was applied to a COS project for surgical trials in gastric cancer to translate a Delphi survey into 7 target languages from regions active in gastric cancer research.ResultsThree hundred thirty-two abstracts were screened and four studies addressing COS development in rheumatoid and osteoarthritis, vascular malformations and polypharmacy were eligible for inclusion. There was wide variation in methodological approaches to translation, including the number of forward translations, the inclusion of back translation, the employment of cognitive debriefing and how discrepancies and disagreements were handled. Important considerations were identified during the development of the gastric cancer survey including establishing translation groups, timelines, understanding financial implications, strategies to maximise recruitment and regulatory approvals. The methodological approach to translating the Delphi surveys was easily reproducible by local collaborators and resulted in an additional 637 participants to the 315 recruited to complete the source language survey. Ninety-nine per cent of patients and 97% of healthcare professionals from non-English-speaking regions used translated surveys.ConclusionConsideration of the issues described will improve planning by other COS developers and can be used to widen international participation from both patients and healthcare professionals.