Survey indicated that core outcome set development is increasingly including patients, being conducted internationally and using Delphi surveys

被引:44
作者
Biggane, Alice M. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Brading, Lucy [4 ]
Ravaud, Philippe [5 ,6 ,7 ,8 ]
Young, Bridget [9 ,10 ]
Williamson, Paula R. [11 ]
机构
[1] Univ Liverpool, Dept Biostat, Liverpool, Merseyside, England
[2] INSERM, Epidemiol & Biostat Sorbonne Paris Cite Res Ctr C, Methods Therapeut Evaluat Chron Dis Team METHODS, F-75014 Paris, France
[3] Paris Descartes Univ, Sorbonne Paris Cite, Paris, France
[4] Univ Liverpool, Inst Psychol Hlth & Soc, North West Hub Trials Methodol Res, Liverpool, Merseyside, England
[5] INSERM U1153, Ctr Rech Epidemiol & Stat, Paris, France
[6] Cochrane France, Paris, France
[7] Hop Hotel Dieu, AP HP, Ctr Epidemiol Clin, F-75004 Paris, France
[8] Columbia Univ, Mailman Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Epidemiol, New York, NY USA
[9] Univ Liverpool, Dept Psychol Sci, Liverpool, Merseyside, England
[10] Univ Liverpool, MRC North West Trials Methodol Res, Liverpool, Merseyside, England
[11] Univ Liverpool, Dept Biostat, MRC North West Hub Trials Methodol Res, Liverpool, Merseyside, England
关键词
Delphi; Survey; Patient engagement; Patient participation; Core outcome sets; QUALITY; WASTE;
D O I
10.1186/s13063-018-2493-y
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], COCHRANE DATABASE SY
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2017, TRIALS, DOI DOI 10.1186/S13063-017-1788-8
[3]   How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set [J].
Chalmers, Iain ;
Bracken, Michael B. ;
Djulbegovic, Ben ;
Garattini, Silvio ;
Grant, Jonathan ;
Guelmezoglu, A. Metin ;
Howells, David W. ;
Ioannidis, John P. A. ;
Oliver, Sandy .
LANCET, 2014, 383 (9912) :156-165
[4]   Avoidable Waste in the Production and Reporting of Research Evidence [J].
Chalmers, Iain ;
Glasziou, Paul .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2009, 114 (06) :1341-1345
[5]  
Clarke M, 2016, SYST REV-LONDON, V5, DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0188-6
[6]   Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires [J].
Edwards, Philip James ;
Roberts, Ian ;
Clarke, Mike J. ;
DiGuiseppi, Carolyn ;
Wentz, Reinhard ;
Kwan, Irene ;
Cooper, Rachel ;
Felix, Lambert M. ;
Pratap, Sarah .
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2009, (03)
[7]   Improving core outcome set development: qualitative interviews with developers provided pointers to inform guidance [J].
Gargon, Elizabeth ;
Williamson, Paula R. ;
Young, Bridget .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2017, 86 :140-152
[8]   Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Systematic Review [J].
Gargon, Elizabeth ;
Gurung, Binu ;
Medley, Nancy ;
Altman, Doug G. ;
Blazeby, Jane M. ;
Clarke, Mike ;
Williamson, Paula R. .
PLOS ONE, 2014, 9 (06)
[9]   Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps [J].
Gorst, Sarah L. ;
Gargon, Elizabeth ;
Clarke, Mike ;
Smith, Valerie ;
Williamson, Paula R. .
PLOS ONE, 2016, 11 (12)
[10]   Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey [J].
Gorst, Sarah L. ;
Gargon, Elizabeth ;
Clarke, Mike ;
Blazeby, Jane M. ;
Altman, Douglas G. ;
Williamson, Paula R. .
PLOS ONE, 2016, 11 (01)