Search

Abstract Background There is inconsistency in outcomes collected in renal cell cancer (RCC) intervention effectiveness studies and variability in their definitions. This makes critical summaries of the evidence base difficult and sub‐optimally informative for clinical practice guidelines and decision‐making by patients and healthcare professionals. A solution is to develop a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials in a clinical area. Objectives To develop three COS for (a) localised, (b) locally advanced and (c) metastatic RCC study design, participants and methods The methods are the same for each of our three COS and are structured in two phases. Phase 1 identifies potentially relevant outcomes by conducting both a systematic literature review and patient interviews (N ~ 30 patients). Qualitative data will be analysed using framework analysis. In phase 2, all outcomes identified in phase 1 will be entered in a modified eDelphi, whereby patients and healthcare professionals (50 of each) will score each outcome's importance (Likert scale from 1 [not important] to 9 [critically important]). Outcomes scored in the 7–9 range by ≥70% and 1–3 by ≤15% will be regarded as ‘consensus in’, and the vice versa of this will constitute ‘consensus out’. All other combinations will be regarded as equivocal and discussed at consensus meetings (including 10 patients and 10 healthcare professionals) in order to vote on them and ratify the results of the eDelphi. Discussion The R‐COS will reduce outcome reporting heterogeneity and improve the evidence base for RCC. Study registration The study is registered with the COMET initiative: https://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1406.

Abstract Objective This study aimed to develop a measure of contributory factors to safety incidents in care homes to be completed by residents and/or their unpaid carers. Introduction Care home residents are particularly vulnerable to patient safety incidents, due to higher likelihood of frailty, multimorbidity and cognitive decline. However, despite residents and their carers wanting to be involved in safety initiatives, there are few mechanisms for them to contribute and make meaningful safety improvements to practice. Methods We developed 73 evidence‐based items from synthesis and existing measures, which we presented to a panel of stakeholders (residents/carers, health/social care professionals and researchers). We used two online rounds of Delphi to generate consensus (80%) on items important to include in the Resident Measure of Safety in Care Homes (RMOS); a consensus meeting was later held. The draft RMOS developed through the Delphi was presented to participants during ‘Think Aloud' interviews using cognitive testing techniques. Results The 29‐item RMOS was developed. Forty‐three participants completed Delphi round 1, and 27 participants completed round 2, 11 participants attended the consensus meeting and 12 ‘Think Aloud’ interviews were conducted. Of the 73 original items, 42 items that did not meet consensus in Delphi round 1 were presented in round 2. After the consensus meeting, it was agreed that 35 items would comprise the RMOS questionnaire and were presented in the ‘Think Aloud’ interviews. Participants suggested numerous changes to items mostly to improve comprehension and ability to answer. Conclusion We have a developed an evidence‐based RMOS, with good face validity, to assess contributory factors to safety in care homes from a resident/carer perspective. Future work will involve psychometrically testing the items in a pilot and developing a complementary simplified, dementia‐friendly version to promote inclusivity. Patient or Public Involvement Four patient and public contributors worked with researchers to develop the online questionnaires. Patients (residents) and carers participated on the consensus panel. One member of the research team is an expert by lived experience and was involved in design and analysis decisions. The item list and instructions for the questionnaires were reviewed for face validity, understanding and acceptability by a patient and public involvement group and modified.

Objective: This study aimed to develop a measure of contributory factors to safety incidents in care homes to be completed by residents and/or their unpaid carers. Introduction: Care home residents are particularly vulnerable to patient safety incidents, due to higher likelihood of frailty, multimorbidity and cognitive decline. However, despite residents and their carers wanting to be involved in safety initiatives, there are few mechanisms for them to contribute and make meaningful safety improvements to practice. Methods: We developed 73 evidence‐based items from synthesis and existing measures, which we presented to a panel of stakeholders (residents/carers, health/social care professionals and researchers). We used two online rounds of Delphi to generate consensus (80%) on items important to include in the Resident Measure of Safety in Care Homes (RMOS); a consensus meeting was later held. The draft RMOS developed through the Delphi was presented to participants during 'Think Aloud' interviews using cognitive testing techniques. Results: The 29‐item RMOS was developed. Forty‐three participants completed Delphi round 1, and 27 participants completed round 2, 11 participants attended the consensus meeting and 12 'Think Aloud' interviews were conducted. Of the 73 original items, 42 items that did not meet consensus in Delphi round 1 were presented in round 2. After the consensus meeting, it was agreed that 35 items would comprise the RMOS questionnaire and were presented in the 'Think Aloud' interviews. Participants suggested numerous changes to items mostly to improve comprehension and ability to answer. Conclusion: We have a developed an evidence‐based RMOS, with good face validity, to assess contributory factors to safety in care homes from a resident/carer perspective. Future work will involve psychometrically testing the items in a pilot and developing a complementary simplified, dementia‐friendly version to promote inclusivity. Patient or Public Involvement: Four patient and public contributors worked with researchers to develop the online questionnaires. Patients (residents) and carers participated on the consensus panel. One member of the research team is an expert by lived experience and was involved in design and analysis decisions. The item list and instructions for the questionnaires were reviewed for face validity, understanding and acceptability by a patient and public involvement group and modified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Medial humeral epicondyle fractures of the elbow are one of the most common injuries in childhood and often require surgery. There are currently no standardised outcome measures to assess progress after an elbow injury in a child. Wide variation in currently reported outcomes makes comparison of treatment difficult. This study aims to identify outcome measures that have previously been reported in studies evaluating the management of medial epicondyle fractures in children and to facilitate the development of a consensus core outcome set (COS) suitable for use in all future studies of medial humeral epicondyle fractures in children. Methods/design This study will include a systematic review of the academic literature to identify a list of outcome measures that have previously been reported. The list of outcome measures will be used in a consensus setting exercise with focus groups of key stakeholders to identify key outcomes. A Delphi process to include two rounds will then be used to define the most important outcomes to all stakeholders forming the COS. Discussion Core outcomes represent the minimum expected data reported for a specific condition and will improve the quality of future studies reducing bias, allowing easier comparison and enhancing opportunities for larger meta-analysis. It is anticipated that this COS will form part of the feasibility to a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded trial concerning the management of elbow fractures in children. Trial registration Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative (COMET), registration number:949. Registered on 17 January 2017. Prospero International prospective register of systematic reviews, registration number: CRD 42017057912. Registered on 16 April 2017.

Background Current ambulance quality and performance measures, such as response times, do not reflect the wider scope of care that services now provide. Using a three-stage consensus process, we aimed to identify new ways of measuring ambulance service quality and performance that represent service provider and public perspectives. Design A multistakeholder consensus event, modified Delphi study, and patient and public consensus workshop. Setting and participants Representatives from ambulance services, patient and public involvement (PPI) groups, emergency care clinical academics, commissioners and policymakers. Results Nine measures/principles were highly prioritized by >75% of consensus event participants, including measures relating to pain, patient experience, accuracy of dispatch decisions and patient safety. Twenty experts participated in two Delphi rounds to further refine and prioritize measures; 20 measures in three domains scored ≥8/9, indicating good consensus, including proportion of calls correctly prioritized, time to definitive care and measures related to pain. Eighteen patient/public representatives attended a consensus workshop, and six measures were identified as important. These include time to definitive care, response time, reduction in pain scores, calls correctly prioritized to appropriate levels of response and survival to hospital discharge for treatable emergency conditions. Conclusions Using consensus methods, we identified a shortlist of ambulance outcome and performance measures that are important to ambulance clinicians and service providers, service users, commissioners, and clinical academics, reflecting current pre-hospital ambulance care and services. The measures can potentially be used to assess pre-hospital quality or performance over time, with most calculated using routinely available data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema (AE) often require photo- or systemic immunomodulatory therapies to induce disease remission and maintain long-term control. The current evidence to guide clinical management is small, despite the frequent and often off-label use of these treatments. Registries of patients on photo- and systemic immunomodulatory therapies could fill this gap, and the collection of a core set concerning these therapies in AE will allow direct comparisons across registries as well as data sharing and pooling. Using an eDelphi approach, the international TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce aims to seek consensus between key stakeholders internationally on a core set of domains and domain items for AE patient registries with a research focus that collect data of children and adults on photo- and systemic immunomodulatory therapies.Methods/design: Participants from six stakeholder groups will be invited: doctors, nurses, non-clinical researchers, patients, as well as industry and regulatory body representatives. The eDelphi will comprise three sequential online rounds, requesting participants to rate the importance of each proposed domain and domain items. Participants will be able to add domains and domain items to the proposed list in round 1. A final consensus meeting will be held with representatives of each stakeholder group.Discussion: Identifying a uniform core set of domains and domain items to be captured by AE patient registries will increase the utility of individual registries, and provide greater insight into the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of photo- and systemic immunomodulatory therapies to guide clinical management across dermatology centres and country borders.Trial Registration: Not applicable. This eDelphi study was registered in the Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prostate cancer is a growing health problem worldwide. The management of localised prostate cancer is controversial. It is unclear which of several surgical, radiotherapeutic, ablative, and surveillance treatments is the most effective. All have cost, process and recovery, and morbidity implications which add to treatment decision-making complexity for patients and healthcare professionals. Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal because of uncertainty as to what constitutes important outcomes. Another issue hampering evidence synthesis is heterogeneity of outcome definition, measurement, and reporting. This project aims to determine which outcomes are the most important to patients and healthcare professionals, and use these findings to recommend a standardised core outcome set for comparative effectiveness trials of treatments for localised prostate cancer, to optimise decision-making. Methods/Design: The range of potentially important outcomes and measures will be identified through systematic reviews of the literature and semi-structured interviews with patients. A consultation exercise involving representatives from two key stakeholder groups (patients and healthcare professionals) will ratify the list of outcomes to be entered into a three round Delphi study. The Delphi process will refine and prioritise the list of identified outcomes. A methodological substudy (nested RCT design) will also be undertaken. Participants will be randomised after round one of the Delphi study to one of three feedback groups, based on different feedback strategies, in order to explore the potential impact of feedback strategies on participant responses. This may assist the design of a future core outcome set and Delphi studies. Following the Delphi study, a final consensus meeting attended by representatives from both stakeholder groups will determine the final recommended core outcome set. Discussion: This study will inform clinical practice and future trials of interventions of localised prostate cancer by standardising a core outcome set which should be considered in comparative effectiveness studies for localised prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cleft palate (CP) has an incidence of approximately 1 in 700. Children with CP are also susceptible to otitis media with effusion (OME), with approximately 90% experiencing nontrivial OME. There are several approaches to the management of OME in children with CP. The Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Children with Cleft Palate (MOMENT) study is a feasibility study that includes the development of a core outcome set for use in future trials of the management of OME in children with CP. Methods/Design: The MOMENT study will include a systematic review of the literature to identify a list of outcomes that have previously been reported. This list of outcomes will be used in a Delphi study with cleft clinicians. The Delphi study is anticipated to include three rounds. The first round will ask clinicians to score the outcome list and to add any outcomes they think are relevant. The second round involves presentation of scores according to stakeholder group and the opportunity for participants to rescore outcomes. To ensure that the opinion of parents and children are sought, qualitative interviews will be completed with a purposive sample in parallel. In the final round of the Delphi process, participants will be shown the distribution of scores, for each outcome, for all stakeholder groups separately as well as a summary of the results concerning outcomes from the qualitative interviews with parents. A final consensus meeting will be held with all stakeholders, including parents and children, to review outcomes. Discussion: A core outcome set represents the minimum that should be measured in a clinical trial for a particular condition. The MOMENT study will aim to identify a core outcome set that can be used in future trials of the management of OME, improving the consistency of research in this clinical area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A modified Delphi study was carried out in order to obtain consensus regarding the content of a university training course to involve service users and carers at all stages of the health and social care educational process within a higher education environment. Telephone interviews were carried out with service users and carers, educationalists and leaders in the field of service user and carer involvement to generate curriculum ideas. A questionnaire was developed from their responses and sent to a purposive sample of 65 people (24 service users and carers, 28 health and social care educationalists and 13 leaders in the field of service user and carer involvement). Fifty-five statements were generated with consensus being reached on 46 (84%) statements. Mismatches between service users and carers, educationalists and leaders in the field were explored. Key themes to be included in the curriculum were identified. This paper demonstrates that the best training is not imposed upon service users and carers by academics or others who think they know best; rather, that service users and carers themselves can play a leading role in identifying their training needs and devising strategies to ensure these needs are effectively met. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Delphi technique is an approach with much to offer health-care research. It was first devised by the RAND corporation in the 1950s and later, in the 1970s, was rediscovered by the nursing profession. Delphi is one of a range of consensus techniques, all of which fall under the broad classification of action research approaches. The purpose of the Delphi technique is to test opinion consensus amongst a group of experts. Content: A brief overview of the various consensus methods is given. The development and operation of the Delphi technique is then considered and a critical assessment of the technique is offered. Conclusions: Delphi is potentially useful across a wide range of applications, however, it is important to appreciate the strengths, weaknesses and pitfalls to avoid in its application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To obtain consensus on the principles and indicators of successful consumer involvement in NHS research. Consensus methods were used. An expert workshop, employing the nominal group technique was used to generate potential principles and indicators. A two-round postal Delphi process was used to obtain consensus on the principles and indicators. Participants were drawn from health, social care, universities and consumer organizations. A purposive sampling strategy was used to identify people who had experience and/or knowledge of consumer involvement in NHS research. Six researchers and seven consumers participated in an expert workshop. Ninety-six people completed both rounds of the Delphi process. Consensus on principles and indicators of successful consumer involvement in NHS research. Eight principles were developed through an expert workshop and Delphi process, and rated as both clear and valid. Consensus was reached on at least one clear and valid indicator by which to measure each principle. Consensus has been obtained on eight principles of successful consumer involvement in NHS research. They may help commissioners, researchers and consumers to deepen their understanding of this issue, and can be used to guide good practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medial humeral epicondyle fractures of the elbow are one of the most common injuries in childhood and often require surgery. There are currently no standardised outcome measures to assess progress after an elbow injury in a child. Wide variation in currently reported outcomes makes comparison of treatment difficult. This study aims to identify outcome measures that have previously been reported in studies evaluating the management of medial epicondyle fractures in children and to facilitate the development of a consensus core outcome set (COS) suitable for use in all future studies of medial humeral epicondyle fractures in children.Methods/design: This study will include a systematic review of the academic literature to identify a list of outcome measures that have previously been reported. The list of outcome measures will be used in a consensus setting exercise with focus groups of key stakeholders to identify key outcomes. A Delphi process to include two rounds will then be used to define the most important outcomes to all stakeholders forming the COS.Discussion: Core outcomes represent the minimum expected data reported for a specific condition and will improve the quality of future studies reducing bias, allowing easier comparison and enhancing opportunities for larger meta-analysis. It is anticipated that this COS will form part of the feasibility to a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded trial concerning the management of elbow fractures in children.Trial Registration: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative (COMET), registration number: 949 . Registered on 17 January 2017. Prospero International prospective register of systematic reviews, registration number: CRD 42017057912 . Registered on 16 April 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]