Standardising personalised diabetes care across European health settings: A person-centred outcome set agreed in a multinational Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: Standardised person-reported outcomes (PRO) data can contextualise clinical outcomes enabling precision diabetes monitoring and care. Comprehensive outcome sets can guide this process, but their implementation in routine diabetes care has remained challenging and unsuccessful at international level. We aimed to address this by developing a person-centred outcome set for Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, using a methodology with prospects for increased implementability and sustainability in international health settings. METHODS: We used a three-round questionnaire-based Delphi study to reach consensus on the outcome set. We invited key stakeholders from 19 countries via purposive snowball sampling, namely people with diabetes (N = 94), healthcare professionals (N = 65), industry (N = 22) and health authorities (N = 3), to vote on the relevance and measurement frequency of 64 previously identified clinical and person-reported outcomes. Subsequent consensus meetings concluded the study. RESULTS: The list of preliminary outcomes was shortlisted via the consensus process to 46 outcomes (27 clinical outcomes and 19 PROs). Two main collection times were recommended: (1) linked to a medical visit (e.g. diabetes-specific well-being, symptoms and psychological health) and (2) annually (e.g. clinical data, general well-being and diabetes self management-related outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: PROs are often considered in a non-standardised way in routine diabetes care. We propose a person-centred outcome set for diabetes, specifically considering psychosocial and behavioural aspects, which was agreed by four international key stakeholder groups. It guides standardised collection of meaningful outcomes at scale, supporting individual and population level healthcare decision making. It will be implemented and tested in Europe as part of the H2O project.

Monitoring what matters to people with diabetes: Do we underestimate the importance of behaviour, attitude, and well-being?

OBJECTIVE: Despite improvements in diabetes monitoring and treatment many patients do not achieve treatment goals. Person-centred approaches have been proposed. However, their practical implementation lags. One barrier is uncertainty about which person-reported outcomes (PROs) should be considered to add the most value. We sought to identify PROs that may be prioritised. METHODS: We used data from a multi-stakeholder Delphi study aimed at developing a person-centred diabetes outcome set and analysed which PROs patients considered important for regular monitoring but healthcare providers less so. Linear regression analyses tested whether belonging to either stakeholder group would predict the importance attributed to an outcome. RESULTS: We found disagreement between patients and healthcare providers on eleven PROs. Stakeholder group predicted perceived importance for ten: self-management behaviours (including performance, perceived importance, motivation, and capacity), sleep quality, diabetes symptoms, screening visit attendance, health status, lifestyle behaviours, and side effects. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that, according to patients' preferences, self-management behaviours, health status and sleep are currently not adequately considered in diabetes management, compromising person-centred care. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This study suggests that prioritising these PROs can facilitate the implementation of more person-centred diabetes monitoring which may support better-informed treatment decisions to achieve treatment goals.

Validity of the self-administered comorbidity questionnaire in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Background: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement has selected the self-administered comorbidity questionnaire (SCQ) to adjust case-mix when comparing outcomes of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment between healthcare providers. However, the SCQ has not been validated for use in IBD patients. Objectives: We assessed the validity of the SCQ for measuring comorbidities in IBD patients. Design: Cohort study. Methods: We assessed the criterion validity of the SCQ for IBD patients by comparing patient-reported and clinician-reported comorbidities (as noted in the electronic health record) of the 13 diseases of the SCQ using Cohen's kappa. Construct validity was assessed using the Spearman correlation coefficient between the SCQ and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), clinician-reported SCQ, quality of life, IBD-related healthcare and productivity costs, prevalence of disability, and IBD disease activity. We assessed responsiveness by correlating changes in the SCQ with changes in healthcare costs, productivity costs, quality of life, and disease activity after 15 months. Results: We included 613 patients. At least fair agreement (κ > 0.20) was found for most comorbidities, but the agreement was slight (κ < 0.20) for stomach disease [κ = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.03; 0.41)], blood disease [κ = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.06; 0.11)], and back pain [κ = 0.18, 95% CI (0.11; 0.25)]. Correlations were found between the SCQ and the clinician-reported SCQ [ρ = 0.60, 95% CI (0.55; 0.66)], CCI [ρ = 0.39, 95% CI (0.31; 0.45)], the prevalence of disability [ρ = 0.23, 95% CI (0.15; 0.32)], and quality of life [ρ = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.37; -0.22)], but not between the SCQ and healthcare or productivity costs or disease activity (|ρ| ⩽ 0.2). A change in the SCQ after 15 months was not correlated with a change in any of the outcomes. Conclusion: The SCQ is a valid tool for measuring comorbidity in IBD patients, but face and content validity should be improved before being used to correct case-mix differences.