A systematic review of studies reporting the development of core outcome sets for use in routine care

被引:10
|
作者
Kearney, Anna [1 ,4 ]
Gargon, Elizabeth [1 ]
Mitchell, James W. [2 ]
Callaghan, Stephen [3 ]
Yameen, Farheen [3 ]
Williamson, Paula R. [1 ]
Dodd, Susanna [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Liverpool, Dept Hlth Data Sci, Liverpool, Lancashire, England
[2] Univ Liverpool, Inst Syst Mol & Integrat Biol, Liverpool, Lancashire, England
[3] Univ Liverpool, NIHR, ARC, NWC, Liverpool, Lancashire, England
[4] Univ Liverpool, Hlth Data Sci, Block F Waterhouse Bldg,1-5 Brownlow St, Liverpool L69 3GL, Lancashire, England
关键词
Core outcome sets; Routine care; Healthcare evaluation; Health outcomes; COMET; Clinical audit; Value -based healthcare; Patient; -centered; outcome measures; CLINICAL-TRIALS; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.03.011
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objectives: Core outcome sets (COS) represent the minimum health outcomes to be measured for a given health condition. Interest is growing in using COS within routine care to support delivery of patient-focused care. This review aims to systematically map COS developed for routine care to understand their scope, stakeholder involvement, and development methods.Methods: Medline (Ovid), Scopus, and Web of Science Core collection were searched for studies reporting development of COS for routine care. Data on scope, methods, and stakeholder groups were analyzed in subgroups defined by setting.Results: Screening 25,301 records identified 262 COS: 164 for routine care only and 98 for routine care and research. Nearly half of the COS (112/254, 44%) were developed with patients, alongside input from experts in registries, insurance, legal, outcomes measurement, and performance management. Research publications were often searched to generate an initial list of outcomes (115/198, 58%) with few searching routine health records (47/198, 24%).Conclusion: An increasing number of COS is being developed for routine care. Although involvement of patient stakeholders has increased in recent years, further improvements are needed. Methodology and scope are broadly similar to COS for research but implementation of the final set is a greater consideration during development.(c) 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页码:34 / 43
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] A systematic review of outcome reporting and outcome measures in studies investigating uterine-sparing treatment for adenomyosis
    Tellum, T.
    Omtvedt, M.
    Naftalin, J.
    Hirsch, M.
    Jurkovic, D.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION OPEN, 2021, 2021 (03)
  • [32] Use, knowledge, & attitudes on core outcome sets among trialists & systematic reviewers in India: A survey
    Bhaumik, Soumyadeep
    Sharma, Inika
    Tyagi, Jyoti
    Ingale, Samiksha Pradeep
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2024, 160 (06) : 606 - 613
  • [33] Inclusion of participants from low-income and middle-income countries in core outcome sets development: a systematic review
    Karumbi, Jamlick
    Gorst, Sarah L.
    Gathara, David
    Gargon, Elizabeth
    Young, Bridget
    Williamson, Paula R.
    BMJ OPEN, 2021, 11 (10):
  • [34] A systematic review of outcomes in postoperative pain studies in paediatric and adolescent patients: towards development of a core outcome set
    Ross, A.
    Young, J.
    Hedin, R.
    Aran, G.
    Demand, A.
    Stafford, A.
    Worley, J.
    Moore, M.
    Vassar, M.
    ANAESTHESIA, 2018, 73 (03) : 375 - 383
  • [35] Outcome Reporting in Studies Investigating Treatment for Caesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy: A Systematic Review
    Nijjar, Simrit
    Sandhar, Simarjit
    Timor-Tritsch, Ilan E.
    Agten, Andrea Kaelin
    Li, Jin
    Chong, Krystle Y.
    Oza, Munira
    Acklom, Rosanna
    D'Antonio, Francesco
    Vuong, Lan N.
    Mol, Ben
    Bottomley, Cecilia
    Jurkovic, Davor
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2025, 132 (03) : 278 - 287
  • [36] Assessing the relevance and uptake of core outcome sets (an agreed minimum collection of outcomes to measure in research studies) in Cochrane systematic reviews: a review
    Williamson, Paula R.
    de Avila Oliveira, Ricardo
    Clarke, Mike
    Gorst, Sarah L.
    Hughes, Karen
    Kirkham, Jamie J.
    Li, Tianjing
    Saldanha, Ian J.
    Schmitt, Jochen
    BMJ OPEN, 2020, 10 (09):
  • [37] Use of core outcome sets was low in clinical trials published in major medical
    Matvienko-Sikar, Karen
    Avery, Kerry
    Blazeby, Jane M.
    Devane, Declan
    Dodd, Susanna
    Egan, Aoife M.
    Gorst, Sarah L.
    Hughes, Karen
    Jacobsen, Pamela
    Kirkham, Jamie J.
    Kottner, Jan
    Mellor, Katie
    Millward, Christopher P.
    Patel, Smitaa
    Quirke, Fiona
    Saldanha, Ian J.
    Smith, Valerie
    Terwee, Caroline B.
    Young, Amber E.
    Williamson, Paula R.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2022, 142 : 19 - 28
  • [38] Variation in outcome reporting in endometriosis trials: a systematic review
    Hirsch, Martin
    Duffy, James M. N.
    Kusznir, Jennie O.
    Davis, Colin J.
    Plana, Maria N.
    Khan, Khalid S.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2016, 214 (04) : 452 - 464
  • [39] A systematic review of outcome reporting in colorectal cancer surgery
    Whistance, R. N.
    Forsythe, R. O.
    McNair, A. G. K.
    Brookes, S. T.
    Avery, K. N. L.
    Pullyblank, A. M.
    Sylvester, P. A.
    Jayne, D. G.
    Jones, J. E.
    Brown, J.
    Coleman, M. G.
    Dutton, S. J.
    Hackett, R.
    Huxtable, R.
    Kennedy, R. H.
    Morton, D.
    Oliver, A.
    Russell, A.
    Thomas, M. G.
    Blazeby, J. M.
    COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2013, 15 (10) : e548 - e560
  • [40] Reporting of Adverse Events in Published and Unpublished Studies of Health Care Interventions: A Systematic Review
    Golder, Su
    Loke, Yoon K.
    Wright, Kath
    Norman, Gill
    PLOS MEDICINE, 2016, 13 (09)