Domains selection for patient-reported outcomes: current activities and options for future methods.

INTRODUCTION: Over the years, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) has worked toward consensus on core sets for outcome measurement in specific rheumatologic diseases. OMERACT core sets refer to the minimum number of domains and instruments essential to address the desired outcomes in trials. "Domains" are the attributes of an activity or function. This article discusses the need for an open process for selecting domains, existing frameworks for choosing domains, and the importance of describing the methods for selecting domains. METHODS: We reviewed the domains selection process of 3 OMERACT groups working on patient-reported outcomes (PRO). We categorized these methods in a hierarchy of comprehensiveness and examined the extent to which they address related issues. RESULTS: There was agreement that a gold standard for domain selection would include 3 important aspects: following a framework, remaining true to the clinical question, and including the clinically relevant outcomes for both benefits and harms. DISCUSSION: OMERACT participants agreed that a guide for the options for developing domains that meet the OMERACT Filter would be useful. More discussion and explanation is needed to outline outcomes related to the patient perspective that are not covered by the current version of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and to explain the usefulness of the population/intervention/comparison/outcome (PICO) structure in domain selection. Future OMERACT work includes addressing these issues and developing a framework based on the ICF to support comprehensive outcome measurements.

Patient perspective workshop: moving towards OMERACT guidelines for choosing or developing instruments to measure patient-reported outcomes.

The workshop Choosing or Developing Instruments held at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 10 meeting was designed to help participants think about the underlying methods of instrument development. Conference pre-reading material and 3 brief introductory presentations elaborated the issues, and participants broke into discussion groups before reconvening to share insights, engage in a more general discussion of the issues, and vote on recommendations. Tradeoffs between using current imperfect measures and the long and complex process of developing new instruments were considered, together with the need for rigor in patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument development. The main considerations for PRO instrument development were listed and a research agenda for action produced. As part of the agenda for action, it is recommended that researchers and patient partners work together to tackle these issues, and that OMERACT bring forward proposals for acceptable instrument development protocols that would meet an enhanced "Truth" statement in the OMERACT Filter.

Developing a construct to evaluate flares in rheumatoid arthritis: a conceptual report of the OMERACT RA Flare Definition Working Group.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and healthcare professionals (HCP) recognize that episodic worsening disease activity, often described as a "flare," is a common feature of RA that can contribute to impaired function and disability. However, there is no standard definition to enable measurement of its intensity and impact. The conceptual framework of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) RA Flare Definition Working Group includes an anchoring statement, developed at OMERACT 9 in 2008: "flare in RA" is defined as worsening of signs and symptoms of sufficient intensity and duration to lead to change in therapy. Subsequently, domains characterizing flare have been identified by comprehensive literature review, patient focus groups, and patient/HCP Delphi exercises. This led to a consensus regarding preliminary domains and a research agenda at OMERACT 10 in May 2010. The conceptual framework of flare takes into account validated approaches to measurement in RA: (1) various disease activity indices (e.g., Disease Activity Score, Clinical Disease Activity Index, Simplified Disease Activity Index); (2) use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO); and (3) characterization of minimally clinically detectable and important differences (MCDD, MCID). The measurement of RA flare is composed of data collection assessing a range of unique domains describing key features of RA worsening at the time of patient self-report of flare, and then periodically for the duration of the flare. The components envisioned are: (1) Patient self-report using a "patient global question" with well characterized and validated anchors; (2) Patient assessment using a flare questionnaire and PRO available at the time of each self-report; (3) Physician/HCP assessment of disease activity status; and (4) Physician's determination whether to change treatment. In randomized controlled trials and observational studies, such a conceptual approach is intended to lead to a valid measure of this outcome/response, thus expanding an understanding of the true impact of a therapy to limit disease activity. Clinically, this approach is intended to enhance patient-HCP communication. This article describes the conceptual framework being used by the OMERACT RA Flare Definition Working Group in developing a standardized method for description and measurement of "flare in RA" to guide individual patient treatment.

Identifying preliminary domains to detect and measure rheumatoid arthritis flares: report of the OMERACT 10 RA Flare Workshop.

BACKGROUND: While disease flares in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are a recognized aspect of the disease process, there is limited formative research to describe them. METHODS: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) RA Flare Definition Working Group is conducting an international research project to understand the specific characteristics and impact of episodic disease worsening, or "flare," so that outcome measures can be developed or modified to reflect this uncommonly measured, but very real and sometimes disabling RA disease feature. Patient research partners provided critical insights into the multidimensional nature of flare. The perspectives of patients and healthcare and research professionals are being integrated to ensure that any outcome measurement to detect flares fulfills the first OMERACT criteria of Truth. Through an iterative data-driven Delphi process, a preliminary list of key domains has been identified to evaluate flare. RESULTS: At OMERACT 10, consensus was achieved identifying features of flare in addition to the existing core set for RA, including fatigue, stiffness, symptom persistence, systemic features, and participation. Patient self-report of flare was identified as a component of the research agenda needed to establish criterion validity for a flare definition; this can be used in prospective studies to further evaluate the Discrimination and Feasibility components of the OMERACT filter for a flare outcome measure. CONCLUSION: Our work to date has provided better understanding of key aspects of the RA disease process as episodic, potentially disabling disease worsening even when a patient is in low disease activity. It also highlights the importance of developing ways to enhance communication between patients and clinicians and improve the ability to achieve "tight control" of disease.

Progress on incorporating the patient perspective in outcome assessment in rheumatology and the emergence of life impact measures at OMERACT 9.

The Patient Perspective Workshop included over 100 researchers and 18 patient participants from 8 countries. Following preconference reading and short plenary presentations, breakout groups considered work undertaken on measurement of sleep, assessing interventions to develop the effective consumer, and assessing psychological and educational interventions. The workshop explored the best way to identify other outcome domains (and instruments) that should be measured in observational or interventional studies with broader intentions than simply altering outcomes captured in the traditional "core set" plus fatigue. Four sleep questionnaires showed promise and will be the subject of further study. The Effective Consumer scale (EC-17) was reviewed and the concept Effective Consumer was well received. Participants thought it worthwhile to measure the skills and attributes of an effective consumer and develop an intervention that would include education in all of the scale's categories. Assessment of educational and psychological interventions requires a wider set of instruments than is currently used; these should relate to the purpose of the intervention. This principle was extended to include wider measures of the impact of disease on life, as indicated in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Life impact measure sets covering domains appropriate to different rheumatic conditions and focused on different interventions might be defined by future OMERACT consensus. Measurement instruments within these domains that are valid for use in rheumatic conditions can then be identified and, in the case of psychological and educational interventions, chosen to fit with the purpose of the intervention.