Dataset Information

Development of guidelines to reduce, handle and report missing data in palliative care trials: A multi-stakeholder modified nominal group technique.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Missing data can introduce bias and reduce the power, precision and generalisability of study findings. Guidelines on how to address missing data are limited in scope and detail, and poorly implemented.

Aim

To develop guidelines on how best to (i) reduce, (ii) handle and (iii) report missing data in palliative care clinical trials.

Design

Modified nominal group technique.

Setting/participants

Patient and public research partners, palliative care clinicians, trialists, methodologists and statisticians attended a 1-day workshop, following which a multi-stakeholder development group drafted the guidelines.

Results

Seven main recommendations for reducing missing data, nine for handling missing data and twelve for reporting missing data were developed. The top five recommendations were: (i) train all research staff on missing data, (ii) prepare for missing data at the trial design stage, (iii) address missing data in the statistical analysis plan, (iv) collect the reasons for missing data and (v) report descriptive statistics comparing the baseline characteristics of those with missing and observed data. Reducing missing data, preparing for missing data and understanding the reasons for missing data were greater priorities for stakeholders than how to deal with missing data once they had occurred.

Conclusion

Comprehensive guidelines on how to address missing data were developed by stakeholders involved in palliative care trials. Implementation of the guidelines will require endorsement of research funders and research journals.

SUBMITTER: Hussain JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8796167 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionVernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is a rare, severe allergic ocular disease, typically occurring in children and adolescents, that can have a significant impact on quality of life and lead to visual impairment. Long-term treatment may be necessary to tackle chronic inflammation and topical corticosteroid dependency must be minimised due to the risk of complications. There is a need for unified clinical guidance to aid the assessment, diagnosis and management of VKC across Europe. The aim of this expert panel (the EUR-VKC Group) was to provide clear guidance for primary care physicians and general ophthalmologists involved in the diagnosis and management of VKC.MethodsAn expert group of seven European ophthalmologists was convened and a modified nominal group technique used to develop key recommendations on VKC management. The recommendations were subject to up to two rounds of voting using a 5-point Likert scale to ascertain consensus and the strength of each recommendation. Consensus was set at a predetermined threshold of ≥ 75.0% of experts selecting 'Strongly agree' or 'Agree'.ResultsA total of 47 recommendations were developed relating to the assessment of key of VKC, guidance on who and when to refer, as well as treatment-escalation pathways, long-term follow-up, and supportive care and education. All recommendations reached consensus after two rounds. The group emphasise how timely diagnosis and treatment initiation that is appropriate to disease severity are crucial to benefit patients with VKC. Patients with signs ('red flags') indicating severe VKC, or persistent mild-to-moderate VKC that is non-responsive following 2-4 weeks of treatment, should be referred to a sub-specialist.ConclusionThe EUR-VKC Group provides recommendations on the assessment, diagnosis, management, referral and follow-up of patients with VKC. It also provides a framework to facilitate collaboration between primary care physicians, general ophthalmologists and sub-specialists to improve the outcomes for patients with VKC.

Project description:BackgroundChildren with symptomatic flat feet (pes planus) frequently present for care but there remains uncertainty about how best to manage their condition. There is considerable variation in practice between and within professions. We intend to conduct a three-arm trial to evaluate three frequently used interventions for pes planus (exercise and advice, exercise and advice plus prefabricated orthoses, and exercise and advice plus custom made orthoses). Each of these interventions are complex and required developing prior to starting the trial. This paper focusses on the development process undertaken to develop the interventions.MethodsWe used a modified Nominal Group Technique combining an electronic survey with two face-to-face meetings to achieve consensus on the final logic model and menu of options for each intervention. Using the Nominal Group Technique across consecutive meetings in combination with a questionnaire is novel, and enabled us to develop complex interventions that reflect contemporary clinical practice.ResultsIn total 16 healthcare professionals took part in the consensus. These consisted of 11 podiatrists, two orthotists, two physiotherapists, and one orthopaedic surgeon. Both meetings endorsed the logic model with amendments to reflect the wider psychosocial impact of pes planus and its treatment, as well as the increasing use of shared decision making in practice. Short lists of options were agreed for prefabricated and custom made orthoses, structures to target in stretching and strengthening exercises, and elements of health education and advice.ConclusionsOur novel modification of the nominal group technique produced a coherent logic model and shortlist of options for each of the interventions that explicitly enable adaptability. We formed a consensus on the range of what is permissible within each intervention so that their integrity is kept intact and they can be adapted and pragmatically applied. The process of combining survey data with face-to-face meetings has ensured the interventions mirror contemporary practice and may provide a template for other trials.

Project description:IntroductionChimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy is a class of immunotherapy. An economic evaluation conducted at an early stage of development of CAR-T therapy for treatment of adult relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukaemia could provide insight into factors contributing to the cost of treatment, the potential clinical benefits, and what the health system can afford. Traditionally, stakeholders are engaged in certain parts of health technology assessment processes, such as in the identification and selection of technologies, formulation of recommendations, and implementation of recommendations; however, little is known about processes for stakeholder engagement during the conduct of the assessment. This is especially the case for economic evaluations. Stakeholders, such as clinicians, policy-makers, patients, and their support networks, have insight into factors that can enhance the validity of an economic evaluation model. This research outlines a specific methodology for stakeholder engagement and represents an avenue to enhance health economic evaluations and support the use of these models to inform decision making for resource allocation. This protocol may inform a tailored framework for stakeholder engagement processes in future economic evaluation model development.Methods and analysisWe will involve clinicians, healthcare researchers, payers, and policy-makers, as well as patients and their support networks in the conduct and verification of an early economic evaluation of a novel health technology to incorporate stakeholder-generated knowledge. Three stakeholder-specific focus groups will be conducted using an online adaptation of the nominal group technique to elicit considerations from each. This study will use CAR-T therapy for adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia as a basis for investigating broader stakeholder engagement processes.Ethics and disseminationThis study received ethics approval from the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Research Ethics Board (REB 20200320-01HT) and the results will be shared via conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications, and ongoing stakeholder engagement.