Translation and validation of the Dutch version of the Effective Consumer Scale (EC-17).

PURPOSE: The Effective Consumer Scale (EC-17) measures the skills of musculoskeletal patients in managing their own healthcare. The objectives of this study were to translate the EC-17 into Dutch and to further evaluate its psychometric properties. METHODS: The EC-17 was translated and cognitively pretested following cross-cultural adaptation guidelines. Two hundred and thirty-eight outpatients (52 % response rate) with osteoarthritis or fibromyalgia completed the EC-17 along with other validated measures. Three weeks later, 101 patients completed the EC-17 again. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis supported the unidimensional structure of the scale. The items adequately fit the Rasch model and only one item demonstrated differential item functioning. Person reliability was high (0.92), but item difficulty levels tended to cluster around the middle of the scale, and measurement precision was highest for moderate and lower levels of skills. The scale demonstrated adequate test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.71), and correlations with other measures were largely as expected. CONCLUSION: The results supported the validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the EC-17, but suggest that the scale is best targeted at patients with relatively low levels of skills. Future studies should further examine its sensitivity to change in a clinical trial specifically aimed at improving effective consumer skills.

Presenting evidence to patients online: what do web users think of consumer summaries of cochrane musculoskeletal reviews?

BACKGROUND: The Internet has the potential to be an effective medium for delivering health care knowledge to consumers. While computer usability research makes recommendations about how to present Web-based information generally, there remains no clear guidance on how to present specific forms of health care research evidence online in a way that facilitates understanding and good health care decision making. OBJECTIVE: The two goals of this study were to describe the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's (CMSG's) process for developing online patient-focused summaries of systematic reviews and to evaluate the impressions of these summaries formed by users. METHODS: A process for summarizing the results of systematic reviews via consumer summaries has evolved over 15 years. An evaluation of this approach took the form of Internet surveys on the Arthritis Society of Canada website and surveys of members of the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance (CAPA). Respondents provided information on background, relationship to the decision, their satisfaction with and preparation for decision making, and suggestions for improvements to the summaries. Survey data were collected between August 1, 2005, and February 28, 2006. RESULTS: A total of 261 respondents completed the survey. The majority (226/261 or 87%) of respondents reported having an arthritis-related condition. The consumer summary approach was generally reviewed favorably by respondents, with most agreeing that the summary provided appropriate information (177/261 or 68%), would be useful to others (160/261 or 61%), was well laid out (159/261 or 61%), was easy to learn from (157/261 or 60%), and was useful to the reader (153/261 or 59%). Areas of potential improvement were indicated by relatively fewer respondents agreeing that they could easily find all the information they wanted (118/261 or 45%), by a substantial proportion being unable to judge whether the providers of the information are reliable (80/261 or 31%), and by a similar proportion being unable to determine whether the information presented was the best available (68/261 or 26%). CONCLUSIONS: The CMSG has developed an approach to summarizing the results of often-technical systematic reviews into public-friendly consumer summaries. Our online survey showed that this approach was generally well liked but identified specific areas for improvement. Feedback from this survey will help to reshape and improve the current template for consumer summaries used by the CMSG.

The OMERACT Emerging Leaders Program: The Good, the Bad, and the Future.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the experience of the first OMERACT Emerging Leaders Program (ELP). METHODS: A Delphi process identified positive aspects, areas for improvement, and future directions. Core items were defined as essential if they received ≥ 70% ratings. RESULTS: Participants valued relatable/accessible mentors (100%), including an OMERACT Executive mentor (100%), and a support network of peers (90%). Key items for future development were funding support (100%) and developing knowledge about OMERACT processes (90%) and politics (80%). CONCLUSION: The ELP has the potential to provide targeted training for early career researchers to develop relevant skills for future leadership roles within OMERACT.

OMERACT Development of a Core Domain Set of Outcomes for Shared Decision-making Interventions.

OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Shared Decision Making (SDM) Working Group aims to determine the core outcome domain set for measuring the effectiveness of SDM interventions in rheumatology trials. METHODS: A white paper was developed to clarify the draft core domain set. It was then used to prepare for interviews to investigate reasons for lack of consensus on it and to suggest further improvements. RESULTS: OMERACT scientists/clinicians (n = 13) and patients (n = 10) suggested limiting the core domain set to outcome domains, removing process domains, and clarifying remaining domains. CONCLUSION: A revised core domain set will undergo further consensus-building.

Knowledge translation for effective consumers.

With the emergence of patient-centered care, consumers are becoming more effective managers of their care--in other words, "effective consumers." To support patients to become effective consumers, a number of strategies to translate knowledge to action (KTA) have been used with varying success. The use of a KTA framework can be helpful to researchers and implementers when framing, planning, and evaluating knowledge translation activities and can potentially lead to more successful activities. This article briefly describes the KTA framework and its use by a team based out of the University of Ottawa to translate evidence-based knowledge to consumers. Using the framework, tailored consumer summaries, decision aids, and a scale to measure consumer effectiveness were created in collaboration with consumers. Strategies to translate the products into action then were selected and implemented. Evaluation of the knowledge tools and products indicates that the products are useful to consumers. Current research is in place to monitor the use of these products, and future research is planned to evaluate the effect of using the knowledge on health outcomes. The KTA framework provides a useful and valuable approach to knowledge translation.

An OMERACT Initiative Toward Consensus to Identify and Characterize Candidate Contextual Factors: Report from the Contextual Factors Working Group.

OBJECTIVE: The importance of contextual factors (CF) for appropriate patient-specific care is widely acknowledged. However, evidence in clinical trials on how CF influence outcomes remains sparse. The 2014 Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Handbook introduced the role of CF in outcome assessment and defined them as "potential confounders and/or effect modifiers of outcomes in randomized controlled trials." Subsequently, the CF Methods Group (CFMG) was formed to develop guidance on how to address CF in clinical trials. METHODS: First, the CFMG conducted an e-mail survey of OMERACT working groups (WG) to analyze how they had addressed CF in outcome measurement so far. The results facilitated an informed discussion at the OMERACT 2016 CFMG Special Interest Group (SIG) session, with the aim of gaining preliminary consensus regarding an operational definition of CF and to make a first selection of potentially relevant CF. RESULTS: The survey revealed that the WG had mostly used the OMERACT Handbook and/or the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) definition. However, significant heterogeneity was found in the methods used to identify, refine, and categorize CF candidates. The SIG participants agreed on using the ICF as a framework along with the OMERACT Handbook definition. A list with 28 variables was collected including person-related factors and physical and social environments. Recommendations from the SIG guided the CFMG to formulate 3 preliminary projects on how to identify and analyze CF. CONCLUSION: New methods are urgently needed to assist researchers to identify and characterize CF that significantly influence the interpretation of results in clinical trials. The CFMG defined first steps to develop further guidance.

OMERACT Endorsement of Patient-reported Outcome Instruments in Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-associated Vasculitis.

OBJECTIVE: The antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitides (AAV) are multiorgan diseases. Patients with AAV report impairment in their health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and have different priorities regarding disease assessment compared with physicians. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Vasculitis Working Group previously received endorsement for a core set of domains in AAV. Two approaches to measure patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were presented at OMERACT 2016. METHODS: A novel 5-step tool was used to facilitate assessment of the instruments by delegates: the OMERACT Filter 2.0 Instrument Selection Algorithm, with a red-amber-green checklist of questions, including (1) good match with domain (face and content validity), (2) feasibility, (3) do numeric scores make sense (construct validity)?, (4) overall ratings of discrimination, and (5) can individual thresholds of meaning be defined? Delegates gave an overall endorsement. Three generic Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments (fatigue, physical functioning, and pain interference) and a disease-specific PRO, the AAV-PRO (6 domains related to symptoms and HRQOL), were presented. RESULTS: OMERACT delegates endorsed the use of the PROMIS instruments for fatigue, physical functioning, and pain interference (87.6% overall endorsement) and the disease-specific AAV-PRO instrument (89.4% overall endorsement). CONCLUSION: The OMERACT Vasculitis Working Group gained endorsement by OMERACT for use of the PROMIS and the AAV-PRO in clinical trials of vasculitis. These instruments are complementary to each other. The PROMIS and the AAV-PRO need further work to assess their utility in longitudinal settings, including their ability to discriminate between treatments of varying efficacy in the setting of a randomized controlled trial.

Health Equity Considerations for Developing and Reporting Patient-reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials: A Report from the OMERACT Equity Special Interest Group.

OBJECTIVE: Despite advances integrating patient-centered outcomes into rheumatologic studies, concerns remain regarding their representativeness across diverse patient groups and how this affects equity. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Equity Working Group aims to determine whether and how to address equity issues within the core outcome sets of domains and instruments. METHODS: We surveyed current and previous OMERACT meeting attendees and members of the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Group regarding whether to address equity issues within the OMERACT Filter 2.0 Core Outcome Sets and how to assess the appropriateness of domains, instruments, and measurement properties among diverse patients. At OMERACT 2016, results of the survey and a narrative review of differential psychosocial effects of rheumatoid arthritis (i.e., on men) were presented to stimulate discussion and develop a research agenda. RESULTS: We proposed 6 moments for which an equity lens could be added to the development, selection, or testing of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM): (1) recruitment, (2) domain selection, (3) feasibility in diverse settings, (4) instrument validity, (5) thresholds of meaning, and (6) consideration of statistical power of subgroup analyses for outcome reporting. CONCLUSION: There is a need to (1) conduct a systematic review to assess how equity and population characteristics have been considered in PROM development and whether these differences influence the ranking of importance of outcome domains or a patient's response to questionnaire items, and (2) conduct the same survey described above with patients representing groups experiencing health inequities.

Toward the Development of a Core Set of Outcome Domains to Assess Shared Decision-making Interventions in Rheumatology: Results from an OMERACT Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Working Group was to determine the core set of outcome domains and subdomains for measuring the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) interventions in rheumatology clinical trials. METHODS: Following the OMERACT Filter 2.0, and based on a previous literature review of SDM outcome domains and a nominal group process at OMERACT 2014, (1) an online Delphi survey was conducted to gather feedback on the draft core set and refine its domains and subdomains, and (2) a workshop was held at the OMERACT 2016 meeting to gain consensus on the draft core set. RESULTS: A total of 170 participants completed Round 1 of the Delphi survey, and 116 completed Round 2. Respondents came from 29 countries, with 49% being patients/caregivers. Results showed that 14 out of the 17 subdomains within the 7 domains exceeded the 70% criterion (endorsement ranged from 83% to 100% of respondents). At OMERACT 2016, only 8% of the 96 attendees were patients/caregivers. Despite initial votes of support in breakout groups, there was insufficient comfort about the conceptualization of these 7 domains and 17 subdomains for these to be endorsed at OMERACT 2016 (endorsement ranged from 17% to 68% of participants). CONCLUSION: Differences between the Delphi survey and consensus meeting may be explained by the manner in which the outcomes were presented, variations in participant characteristics, and the context of voting. Further efforts are needed to address the limited understanding of SDM and its outcomes among OMERACT participants.

OMERACT Filter Evidence Supporting the Measurement of At-work Productivity Loss as an Outcome Measure in Rheumatology Research.

OBJECTIVE: Indicators of work role functioning (being at work, and being productive while at work) are important outcomes for persons with arthritis. As the worker productivity working group at OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology), we sought to provide an evidence base for consensus on standardized instruments to measure worker productivity [both absenteeism and at-work productivity (presenteeism) as well as critical contextual factors]. METHODS: Literature reviews and primary studies were done and reported to the OMERACT 12 (2014) meeting to build the OMERACT Filter 2.0 evidence for worker productivity outcome measurement instruments. Contextual factor domains that could have an effect on scores on worker productivity instruments were identified by nominal group techniques, and strength of influence was further assessed by literature review. RESULTS: At OMERACT 9 (2008), we identified 6 candidate measures of absenteeism, which received 94% endorsement at the plenary vote. At OMERACT 11 (2012) we received over the required minimum vote of 70% for endorsement of 2 at-work productivity loss measures. During OMERACT 12 (2014), out of 4 measures of at-work productivity loss, 3 (1 global; 2 multiitem) received support as having passed the OMERACT Filter with over 70% of the plenary vote. In addition, 3 contextual factor domains received a 95% vote to explore their validity as core contextual factors: nature of work, work accommodation, and workplace support. CONCLUSION: Our current recommendations for at-work productivity loss measures are: WALS (Workplace Activity Limitations Scale), WLQ PDmod (Work Limitations Questionnaire with modified physical demands scale), WAI (Work Ability Index), WPS (Arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey), and WPAI (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire). Our future research focus will shift to confirming core contextual factors to consider in the measurement of worker productivity.

The Spirit of OMERACT: Q Methodology Analysis of Conference Characteristics Valued by Delegates.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the major features of OMERACT meetings as valued by frequent participants and to explore whether there are groups of participants with different opinions. METHODS: Using Q methodology (a qualitative and quantitative approach to grouping people according to subjective opinion), participants (who attended more than 1 OMERACT conference) sorted 66 statements relating to the "spirit of OMERACT" according to level of agreement across a normal distribution grid. Data were examined using Q factor analysis. RESULTS: Of 226 potential participants, 105 responded (46%). All participants highly ranked the focus on global standardization of methods, outcome measures, data-driven research, methodological discussion, and international collaboration. Four factors describing the "spirit of OMERACT" were identified: "Evidence not eminence" (n = 31) valued the data- and evidence-driven research above personality and status; "Collaboration and collegiality" (n = 19) valued the international and cross-stakeholder collaboration, interaction, and collegiality; "Equal voices, equal votes, common goals" (n = 12) valued equality in discussion and voting, with everyone striving toward the same goal; "principles and product, not process" (n = 8) valued the principles of focusing on outcome measures and the product of guiding clinical trials, but were unsure whether the process is necessary to reach this. The factors did not segregate different stakeholder groups. CONCLUSION: Delegates value different elements of OMERACT, and thus the "spirit of OMERACT" encompasses evidence-based research, collaboration, and equality, although a small group are unsure whether the process is necessary to achieve the end result. Q methodology may prove useful for conference organizers to identify their delegates' different needs to tailor conference content.

A Call for Evidence-based Decision Making When Selecting Outcome Measurement Instruments for Summary of Findings Tables in Systematic Reviews: Results from an OMERACT Working Group.

OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews often struggle with how to combine information when more than 1 instrument is used across studies being synthesized. Different techniques have been suggested based on frequency of use in the literature, or on consensus. We explore an approach blending 2 initiatives: OMERACT (Outcome Measurement in Rheumatology) and COSMIN (Consensus On Selection of Measurement Instruments), and investigate the effects of an evidence-based measurement approach on selection of outcomes. METHODS: Readings were circulated to attendees registered for a preconference workshop on pain measurement. Three instruments were considered and exercises conducted to engage people in the content and measurement performance of these tools. Consensus was sought that an evidence-based approach could be created for selection of instruments for summary of findings (SoF) tables. RESULTS: The blending of COSMIN and OMERACT approaches led to an evidence-based approach that depended both on a clear definition of target concept and a review of measurement performance of the instrument. Participants emphasized that conceptual clarity and practical considerations should come before measurement property results. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based approaches can be adopted for selection of instruments for SoF tables. A research agenda was formulated.

Dialogue on Developing Consensus on Measurement and Presentation of Patient-important Outcomes, Using Pain Outcomes as an Exemplar, in Systematic Reviews: A Preconference Meeting at OMERACT 12.

Prior to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 12 meeting in Budapest, Hungary, a workshop was held bringing together individuals from a number of international outcome measure organizations to assess how best to further develop consensus on how pain is conceptualized and measured in trials of musculoskeletal conditions, and how the trials should be reported in systematic reviews.

Is Chronic Pain a Disease in Its Own Right? Discussions from a Pre-OMERACT 2014 Workshop on Chronic Pain.

At the pain workshop held prior to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 12 conference, chronic nonmalignant pain (CP) as a "disease" was discussed, in response to growing interest in this concept and in terms of the effect on the OMERACT Filter 2.0 framework. CP is often assessed as a unidimensional outcome measure; however, if CP is a disease, then outcome measures need to define the disease state and identify all its manifestations as well as its effects, as specified by Filter 2.0. The aim was to write a discussion piece, reflecting the workshop contributions and debate, as an important step in opening a dialogue around future OMERACT Filter 2.0 Framework developments.

Harmonizing Pain Outcome Measures: Results of the Pre-OMERACT Meeting on Partnerships for Consensus on Patient-important Pain Outcome Domains Between the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group and OMERACT.

OBJECTIVE: A variety of authorities in pain measurement and outcome methodology met prior to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 12 meeting in May 2014 to develop partnerships for consensus on pain outcomes. METHODS: Following overview presentations, discussion centered on pain-specific and global constructs in the domain of chronic pain. Practical issues for clinical trial implementation were also discussed. Breakout sessions were completed regarding additional details of domain constructs. A nominal group process involving all workshop participants confirmed that chronic pain outcome measures encompass a broad range of constructs and that existing scales may be inadequate for assessment in clinical trials. RESULTS: Participants endorsed that both pain intensity and pain interference are important constructs to be measured in clinical trials of chronic pain as it pertains to rheumatologic diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Further work is needed on inclusion of the patient perspective in the development of pain domains as well as Cochrane Collaboration summary of findings tables.

Exploration, Development, and Validation of Patient-reported Outcomes in Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-associated Vasculitis Using the OMERACT Process.

OBJECTIVE: Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) is a group of linked multisystem life- and organ-threatening diseases. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) vasculitis working group has been at the forefront of outcome development in the field and has achieved OMERACT endorsement of a core set of outcomes for AAV. Patients with AAV report as important some manifestations of disease not routinely collected through physician-completed outcome tools; and they rate common manifestations differently from investigators. The core set includes the domain of patient-reported outcomes (PRO). However, PRO currently used in clinical trials of AAV do not fully characterize patients' perspectives on their burden of disease. The OMERACT vasculitis working group is addressing the unmet needs for PRO in AAV. METHODS: Current activities of the working group include (1) evaluating the feasibility and construct validity of instruments within the PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System) to record components of the disease experience among patients with AAV; (2) creating a disease-specific PRO measure for AAV; and (3) applying The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health to examine the scope of outcome measures used in AAV. RESULTS: The working group has developed a comprehensive research strategy, organized an investigative team, included patient research partners, obtained peer-reviewed funding, and is using a considerable research infrastructure to complete these interrelated projects to develop evidence-based validated outcome instruments that meet the OMERACT filter of truth, discrimination, and feasibility. CONCLUSION: The OMERACT vasculitis working group is on schedule to achieve its goals of developing validated PRO for use in clinical trials of AAV.

Development of a Draft Core Set of Domains for Measuring Shared Decision Making in Osteoarthritis: An OMERACT Working Group on Shared Decision Making.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the importance of shared decision making for delivering patient-centered care in rheumatology, there is no consensus on how to measure its process and outcomes. The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) working group is to determine the core set of domains for measuring shared decision making in intervention studies in adults with osteoarthritis (OA), from the perspectives of patients, health professionals, and researchers. METHODS: We followed the OMERACT Filter 2.0 method to develop a draft core domain set by (1) forming an OMERACT working group; (2) conducting a review of domains of shared decision making; and (3) obtaining opinions of all those involved using a modified nominal group process held at a session activity at the OMERACT 12 meeting. RESULTS: In all, 26 people from Europe, North America, and Australia, including 5 patient research partners, participated in the session activity. Participants identified the following domains for measuring shared decision making to be included as part of the draft core set: (1) identifying the decision, (2) exchanging information, (3) clarifying views, (4) deliberating, (5) making the decision, (6) putting the decision into practice, and (7) assessing the effect of the decision. Contextual factors were also suggested. CONCLUSION: We proposed a draft core set of shared decision-making domains for OA intervention research studies. Next steps include a workshop at OMERACT 13 to reach consensus on these proposed domains in the wider OMERACT group, as well as to detail subdomains and assess instruments to develop a core outcome measurement set.

Toward Ensuring Health Equity: Readability and Cultural Equivalence of OMERACT Patient-reported Outcome Measures.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 12 (2014) equity working group was to determine whether and how comprehensibility of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) should be assessed, to ensure suitability for people with low literacy and differing cultures. METHODS: The English, Dutch, French, and Turkish Health Assessment Questionnaires and English and French Osteoarthritis Knee and Hip Quality of Life questionnaires were evaluated by applying 3 readability formulas: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid grade level, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook; and a new tool, the Evaluative Linguistic Framework for Questionnaires, developed to assess text quality of questionnaires. We also considered a study assessing cross-cultural adaptation with/without back-translation and/or expert committee. The results of this preconference work were presented to the equity working group participants to gain their perspectives on the importance of comprehensibility and cross-cultural adaptation for PROM. RESULTS: Thirty-one OMERACT delegates attended the equity session. Twenty-six participants agreed that PROM should be assessed for comprehensibility and for use of suitable methods (4 abstained, 1 no). Twenty-two participants agreed that cultural equivalency of PROM should be assessed and suitable methods used (7 abstained, 2 no). Special interest group participants identified challenges with cross-cultural adaptation including resources required, and suggested patient involvement for improving translation and adaptation. CONCLUSION: Future work will include consensus exercises on what methods are required to ensure PROM are appropriate for people with low literacy and different cultures.

Worker productivity outcome measures: OMERACT filter evidence and agenda for future research.

The objective of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Worker Productivity working group is to identify worker productivity outcome measures that meet the requirements of the OMERACT filter. At the OMERACT 11 Workshop, we focused on the at-work limitations/productivity component of worker productivity (i.e., presenteeism) - an area with diverse conceptualization and instrumentation approaches. Various approaches to quantify at-work limitations/productivity (e.g., single-item global and multi-item measures) were examined, and available evidence pertaining to OMERACT truth, discrimination, and feasibility were presented to conference participants. Four candidate global measures of presenteeism were put forth for a plenary vote to determine whether current evidence meets the OMERACT filter requirements. Presenteeism globals from the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (72% support) and Rheumatoid Arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey (71% support) were endorsed by conference participants; however, neither the presenteeism global item from the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire nor the Quantity and Quality method achieved the level of support required for endorsement at the present time. The plenary was also asked whether the central item from the Work Ability Index should also be considered as a candidate measure for potential endorsement in the future. Of participants at the plenary, 70% supported this presenteeism global measure. Progress was also made in other areas through discussions at individual breakout sessions. Topics examined include the merits of various multi-item measures of at-work limitations/productivity, methodological issues related to interpretability of outcome scores, and approaches to appraise and classify contextual factors of worker productivity. Feedback gathered from conference participants will inform the future research agenda of the working group.

Overview of the patient perspective at OMERACT 10--conceptualizing methods for developing patient-reported outcomes.

This overview draws out the main conclusions from the 4 workshops focused on incorporating the patient perspective into outcome assessment at the 10th Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT 10) conference. They raised methodological issues about the choice of outcome domains to include in clinical trials, the development or choice of instruments to measure these domains, and the way these instruments might capture the impact of a disease and its treatment. The need to develop a more rigorous conceptual model of quantifying the way conditions affect health, and the need to ensure patients are directly involved in the decisions about domains and instruments, emerged clearly. The OMERACT participants voted to develop guidelines for domain and instrument selection, and conceptual and experimental work will be brought forward to revise and upgrade the OMERACT Filter.