A review of patient and carer participation and the use of qualitative research in the development of core outcome sets

被引:31
|
作者
Jones, Janet E. [1 ]
Jones, Laura L. [1 ]
Keeley, Thomas J. H. [2 ]
Calvert, Melanie J. [1 ]
Mathers, Jonathan [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Birmingham, Coll Med & Dent Sci, Inst Appl Hlth Res, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
[2] Parexel Int, Evergreen Bldg, London, England
来源
PLOS ONE | 2017年 / 12卷 / 03期
关键词
CLINICAL-TRIALS; CONSENSUS STATEMENT; HAND OSTEOARTHRITIS; HEALTH OUTCOMES; ATOPIC ECZEMA; DOMAINS; PERSPECTIVE; FIBROMYALGIA; CHILDREN; BENEFITS;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0172937
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Background To be meaningful, a core outcome set (COS) should be relevant to all stakeholders including patients and carers. This review aimed to explore the methods by which patients and carers have been included as participants in COS development exercises and, in particular, the use and reporting of qualitative methods. Methods In August 2015, a search of the Core Outcomes Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database was undertaken to identify papers involving patients and carers in COS develop-ment. Data were extracted to identify the data collection methods used in COS development, the number of health professionals, patients and carers participating in these, and the reported details of qualitative research undertaken. Results Fifty-nine papers reporting patient and carer participation were included in the review, ten of which reported using qualitative methods. Although patients and carers participated in out-come elicitation for inclusion in COS processes, health professionals tended to dominate the prioritisation exercises. Of the ten qualitative papers, only three were reported as a clear pre-designed part of a COS process. Qualitative data were collected using interviews, focus groups or a combination of these. None of the qualitative papers reported an underpinning methodological framework and details regarding data saturation, reflexivity and resource use associated with data collection were often poorly reported. Five papers reported difficulty in achieving a diverse sample of participants and two reported that a large and varied range of outcomes were often identified by participants making subsequent rating and rank-ing difficult. Conclusions Consideration of the best way to include patients and carers throughout the COS develop-ment process is needed. Additionally, further work is required to assess the potential role of qualitative methods in COS, to explore the knowledge produced by different qualitative data collection methods, and to evaluate the time and resources required to incorporate qualitative methods into COS development.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] In-depth qualitative interviews identified barriers and facilitators that influenced chief investigators' use of core outcome sets in randomised controlled trials
    Hughes, Karen L.
    Williamson, Paula R.
    Young, Bridget
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2022, 144 : 111 - 120
  • [12] Synthesis of temporomandibular disorders management intervention outcomes for development of core outcome sets: A systematic review
    Ferreira, N. R.
    Marto, C. M.
    de Sousa, B. M.
    Loureiro, M.
    Oliveira, A. T.
    Dossantos, M. F.
    Rodrigues, M. J.
    JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, 2024, 51 (07) : 1303 - 1319
  • [13] Developing Core Outcome Sets (COS) and Core Outcome Measures Sets (COMS) in Cosmetic Gynecological Interventions: Protocol for a Development and Usability Study
    Doumouchtsis, Stergios K.
    Nama, Vivek
    Falconi, Gabriele
    Rada, Maria Patricia
    Manonai, Jittima
    Iancu, George
    Haddad, Jorge Milhem
    Betschart, Cornelia
    JMIR RESEARCH PROTOCOLS, 2021, 10 (11):
  • [14] Controversy and Debate Series on Core Outcome Sets. Paper 1: Improving the generalizability and credibility of core outcome sets (COS) by a large and international participation of diverse stakeholders
    Chevance, Astrid
    Tran, Viet-Thi
    Ravaud, Philippe
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2020, 125 : 206 - +
  • [15] Identifying common core outcome domains from core outcome sets of musculoskeletal conditions: protocol for a systematic review
    Tamer S. Sabet
    David B. Anderson
    Peter W. Stubbs
    Rachelle Buchbinder
    Caroline B. Terwee
    Alessandro Chiarotto
    Joel Gagnier
    Arianne P. Verhagen
    Systematic Reviews, 11
  • [16] Core outcome sets for use in effectiveness trials involving people with bipolar and schizophrenia in a community-based setting (PARTNERS2): study protocol for the development of two core outcome sets
    Keeley, Thomas
    Khan, Humera
    Pinfold, Vanessa
    Williamson, Paula
    Mathers, Jonathan
    Davies, Linda
    Sayers, Ruth
    England, Elizabeth
    Reilly, Siobhan
    Byng, Richard
    Gask, Linda
    Clark, Mike
    Huxley, Peter
    Lewis, Peter
    Birchwood, Maximillian
    Calvert, Melanie
    TRIALS, 2015, 16
  • [17] Patient participation in patient-reported outcome instrument development in systemic sclerosis
    Pauling, J. D.
    Frech, T. M.
    Domsic, R. T.
    Hudson, M.
    CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RHEUMATOLOGY, 2017, 35 (04) : S184 - S192
  • [18] Patient-important outcomes and core outcome sets: increased attention needed!
    Moller, Morten H.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2019, 122 (04) : 408 - 410
  • [19] Development Methodology, Availability, and Implementation of Core Outcome Sets in Pediatric Surgery
    Allin, Benjamin S. R.
    Bethell, George S.
    Hall, Nigel J.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY, 2024, 34 (02) : 128 - 136
  • [20] Assessment of the methodological quality of studies on core outcome sets for respiratory diseases: A systematic review and meta-research study
    Liu, Mengjuan
    Wang, Jiajia
    Wang, Lu
    Zhang, Xinyi
    Hao, Ruiyu
    Wang, Duolao
    Chen, Tao
    Li, Jiansheng
    PLOS ONE, 2025, 20 (01):