A protocol for the development of core outcome sets for effectiveness trials and clinical audits in renal cell cancer (R-COS).

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.

Randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of various washout policies versus no washout policy in preventing catheter associated complications in adults living with long-term catheters: study protocol for the CATHETER II study.

BACKGROUND: Various washout policies are widely used in adults living with long-term catheters (LTC). There is currently insufficient evidence on the benefits and potential harms of prophylactic LTC washout policies in the prevention of blockages and other LTC-related adverse events, such as urinary tract infections. CATHETER II tests the hypothesis that weekly prophylactic LTC washouts (normal saline or citric acid) in addition to standard LTC care reduce the incidence of catheter blockage requiring intervention compared to standard LTC care only in adults living with LTC. METHODS: CATHETER II is a pragmatic three-arm open multi-centre superiority randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot, economic analysis, and embedded qualitative study. Eligible participants are adults aged ≥ 18 years, who have had a LTC in use for ≥ 28 days, have no plans to discontinue the use of the catheter, are able to undertake the catheter washouts, and complete trial documentation or have a carer able to help them. Participants are identified from general practitioner practices, secondary/tertiary care, community healthcare, care homes, and via public advertising strategies. Participants are randomised 1:1:1 to receive a weekly saline (0.9%) washout in addition to standard LTC care, a weekly citric acid (3.23%) washout in addition to standard LTC care or standard LTC care only. Participants and/or carers will receive training to administer the washouts. Patient-reported outcomes are collected at baseline and for 24 months post-randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is catheter blockage requiring intervention up to 24 months post-randomisation expressed per 1000 catheter days. Secondary outcomes include symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics, catheter change, adverse events, NHS/ healthcare use, and impact on quality of life. DISCUSSION: This study will guide treatment decision-making and clinical practice guidelines regarding the effectiveness of various prophylactic catheter washout policies in men and women living with LTC. This research has received ethical approval from Wales Research Ethics Committee 6 (19/WA/0015). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN17116445 . Registered prospectively on 06 November 2019.

Updating and Integrating Core Outcome Sets for Localised, Locally Advanced, Metastatic, and Nonmetastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: An Update from the PIONEER Consortium.

CONTEXT: Harmonisation of outcome reporting and definitions for clinical trials and routine patient records can enable health care systems to provide more efficient outcome-driven and patient-centred interventions. We report on the work of the PIONEER Consortium in this context for prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To update and integrate existing core outcome sets (COS) for PCa for the different stages of the disease, assess their applicability, and develop standardised definitions of prioritised outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We followed a four-stage process involving: (1) systematic reviews; (2) qualitative interviews; (3) expert group meetings to agree standardised terminologies; and (4) recommendations for the most appropriate definitions of clinician-reported outcomes. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Following four systematic reviews, a multinational interview study, and expert group consensus meetings, we defined the most clinically suitable definitions for (1) COS for localised and locally advanced PCa and (2) COS for metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa. No new outcomes were identified in our COS for localised and locally advanced PCa. For our COS for metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa, nine new core outcomes were identified. CONCLUSIONS: These are the first COS for PCa for which the definitions of prioritised outcomes have been surveyed in a systematic, transparent, and replicable way. This is also the first time that outcome definitions across all prostate cancer COS have been agreed on by a multidisciplinary expert group and recommended for use in research and clinical practice. To limit heterogeneity across research, these COS should be recommended for future effectiveness trials, systematic reviews, guidelines and clinical practice of localised and metastatic PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patient outcomes after treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) are difficult to compare because of variability. To allow better use of data from patients with PCa, the PIONEER Consortium has standardised and recommended outcomes (and their definitions) that should be collected as a minimum in all future studies.

Patients' and Health Care Professionals' Expectations, Experience, and Perception of the Outcomes of Various Washout Policies in Preventing Catheter-associated Complications: Qualitative Study of the CATHETER II Trial.

The CATHETER II trial is expected to determine if and which policy for prophylactic catheter washout on a weekly basis improves the outcome of care for people living with a long-term catheter. By exploring the views and experiences of both the trial participants and health care professionals in relation to the trial delivery and outcomes, the CATHETER II qualitative study can provide context to the trial findings, clarify the fidelity of the intervention, and inform translation of the intervention into routine policy and practice.

The Key Role of Patient Involvement in the Development of Core Outcome Sets in Prostate Cancer.

Patients are the stewards of their own care and hence their voice is important when designing and implementing research. Patients should be involved not only as participants in research that impacts their care, as the recipients of that care and any associated harms, but also as research collaborators in prioritising important questions from the patient perspective and designing the research and the ways in which is it most appropriate to involve patients. The PIONEER Consortium, an international multistakeholder collaboration lead by the European Association of Urology, has developed a core outcome set (COS) for localised and metastatic prostate cancer relevant to all stakeholders in particular patients. Throughout the work of PIONEER, patient representatives were involved as collaborators in setting the research agenda, and a wider group of patients was involved as participants in developing COSs, for instance in consensus meetings on choosing important outcomes and appropriate definitions. This publication showcases the process for COS development and highlights the most important recommendations to ultimately inform future research projects co-created between patients and other stakeholders. PATIENT SUMMARY: An important step in involving patients in the selection of outcomes for clinical trials, clinical audits, and real-world evidence is the development of a core outcome set (COS) that is relevant to all stakeholders. This report highlights the patient participation throughout our PIONEER COS development. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: An important step in involving patients in the selection of outcomes for clinical trials, clinical audits, and real-world evidence is to develop a core outcome set (COS) that is relevant to all stakeholders. As part of the work of the PIONEER Consortium, we aim to highlight the patient participation throughout our PIONEER COS development.

Increasing Engagement for Breast Cancer Screening and Treatment: The "ICANTREAT" Community of Expertise Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Incidence of breast cancer and associated mortality are on the rise globally. Breast cancer incidence in India is on the rise and also accounts for a staggering 50% mortality rate among women. Health illiteracy, socio-economic and cultural barriers in addition to lack of an organized nationwide screening and prevention programme contribute to poor patient outcomes. Thus, it is imperative to strengthen the existing screening and treatment facilities to address the increasing cancer burden. In this regard, we conducted a workshop to investigate the scope of a multi- stakeholder engagement in breast cancer screening and treatment. METHODS: A stakeholder workshop grounded in an established co-design methodology  was convened in a semi-urban coastal district in South India with active participation of physicians, surgeons, occupational therapists, community leaders, programme officers, public health professionals and breast cancer survivors. Shiffman and Smith's framework was adapted to highlight barriers to screening and role of stakeholders in the co-design of solutions. RESULTS: Deliberate and active discussions marked the workshop proceedings resulting in the identification of   individual and systems level barriers, facilitators and implementation strategies. Social stigma and non-existent standard protocols for screening and referral were recognised as critical barriers, while community engagement and a dedicated patient advocate were the proposed facilitators. CONCLUSION: This workshop was an important step in bringing together key stakeholders and marked the beginning of the ICANTREAT initiative and a Community of Expertise. The outcomes highlight the importance of stakeholder involvement in the cancer- care pathway for breast cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment.

How men receive and utilise partner support when trying to change their diet and physical activity within a men's weight management programme.

BACKGROUND: The impacts of interventions designed to change health behaviours are potentially affected by the complex social systems in which they are embedded. This study uses Scottish data to explore how men receive and utilise partner support when attempting to change dietary practices and physical activity within the context of Football Fans in Training (FFIT), a gender-sensitised weight management and healthy living programme for men who are overweight/obese. METHODS: Separate semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 20 men and their cohabiting female partners (total n = 40), 3-12 months after the men had completed FFIT. Data were thematically analysed and individual interviews were combined for dyadic analysis. RESULTS: Men's and women's accounts suggested variations in men's need for, and utilisation of, partner support in order to make changes to dietary practices and physical activity. There were also differences in descriptions of women's involvement in men's behaviour changes. Typologies were developed categorising men as 'resolute', 'reliant'/'receptive' and 'non-responsive' and women as 'very involved', 'partially involved' and 'not involved'. Men were more reliant, and women more involved, in changes to dietary practices compared to physical activity. The role of partner involvement in promoting men's behaviour change seemed contingent on men's resoluteness, or their reliance on the partner support. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight how interactions between men's resoluteness/reliance on cohabiting female partners and the partners' involvement impact the extent to which female partners influence men's changes to dietary practices and physical activity following a weight loss intervention. Understanding this interaction could increase the impact of health interventions aimed at one individual's behaviour by considering other family members' roles in facilitating those changes. The typologies developed for this study might contribute towards the development of behaviour change theories within the cohabiting couple context.