Involving different stakeholders in prioritising outcomes to assess healthcare systems response for type 1 diabetes management: Using co-creation approaches in Peru.

BACKGROUND: Engaging diverse stakeholders in developing core outcome sets (COSs) can produce more meaningful metrics as well as research responsive to patient needs. The most common COS prioritisation method, Delphi surveys, has limitations related to selection bias and participant understanding, while qualitative methods like group discussions are less frequently used. This study aims to test a co-creation approach to COS development for type 1 diabetes (T1DM) in Peru. METHODS: Using a co-creation approach, we aimed to prioritise outcomes for T1DM management in Peru, incorporating perspectives from people with T1DM, caregivers, healthcare professionals, and decision-makers. A set of outcomes were previously identified through a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. Through qualitative descriptive methods, including in-person workshops, each group of stakeholders contributed to the ranking of outcomes. Decision-makers also discussed the feasibility of measuring these outcomes within the Peruvian healthcare system. RESULTS: While priorities varied among participant groups, all underscored the significance of monitoring healthcare system functionality over mortality. Participants recognized the interconnected nature of healthcare system performance, clinical outcomes, self-management, and quality of life. When combining the rankings from all the groups, metrics related to economic impact on the individual and structural support, policies promoting health, and protecting those living with T1DM were deemed more important in comparison to measuring clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: We present the first COS for T1DM focused on low-and-middle-income countries and show aspects of care that are relevant in this setting. Diverse prioritisation among participant groups underscores the need of inclusive decision-making processes. By incorporating varied perspectives, healthcare systems can better address patient needs and enhance overall care quality.

Outcomes measured in studies assessing health systems interventions for type 1 diabetes management: A scoping review.

AIMS: Describe the outcomes reported in research on health systems interventions for type 1 diabetes management in comparison to the outcomes proposed by a core outcome set (COS) for this condition, an essential list of outcomes that studies should measure. METHODS: Systematic search of studies published between 2010 and 2021 reporting health systems interventions directed to improve the management of type 1 diabetes using PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL. Information on the outcomes was extracted and classified according to a COS: self-management, level of clinical engagement, perceived control over diabetes, diabetes-related quality of life, diabetes burden, diabetes ketoacidosis, severe hypoglycemia, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C). RESULTS: 187 studies were included. Most of the studies included either children (n = 82/187) or adults (n = 82/187) living with type 1 diabetes. The most common outcome measured was HbA1C (n = 149/187), followed by self-management (n = 105/187). While the least measured ones were diabetes ketoacidosis (n = 15/187), and clinical engagement (n = 0/187). None of the studies measured all the outcomes recommended in the COS. Additionally, different tools were found to be used in measuring the same outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a description of what researchers are measuring when assessing health systems interventions to improve type 1 diabetes management. In contrast to a COS, it was found that there is a predominance of clinical-based outcomes over patient-reported outcome measures.

A Core Outcome Set for Clinical Trials in Pediatric Functional Abdominal Pain Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To ensure consistency and reduce outcome measure reporting heterogeneity in clinical trials on pediatric functional abdominal pain disorders (FAPDs), a core outcome set (COS) was developed for pediatric FAPD trials. STUDY DESIGN: A mixed-method 2-round Delphi technique was used and key stakeholders, including healthcare professionals (HCPs), patients with FAPD, and their parents were invited to participate. In the first round, key stakeholders identified outcomes of importance through an open-ended questionnaire. Outcomes mentioned by ≥10% of the participants were included in a shortlist. In the second round, this shortlist was rated and prioritized. During a consensus meeting with an expert panel, the final COS was defined. RESULTS: The first round was completed by 152 of 210 (72%) HCPs, 103 (100%) parents, and 50 of 54 (93%) patients. A total of 104 from 167 (62%) HCPs, 102 (100%) parents, and 53 (100%) patients completed round 2. Pain intensity, pain frequency, quality of life, school attendance, anxiety/depression, adequate relief, defecation pattern (disease specific, irritable bowel syndrome), and adverse events were included in the final COS for FAPDs. CONCLUSION: A set of 8 core outcomes has been identified that should minimally be measured in pediatric FAPD trials. Implementation of the use of this COS will increase comparison between studies and, therefore, improve management of children with FAPDs.

A systematic review of reported outcomes and outcome measures in randomized trials evaluating surgical interventions for posterior vaginal prolapse to aid development of a core outcome set.

BACKGROUND: Recent systematic reviews have demonstrated wide variations on outcome measure selection and outcome reporting in trials on surgical treatments for anterior, apical and mesh prolapse surgery. A systematic review of reported outcomes and outcome measures in posterior compartment vaginal prolapse interventions is highly warranted in the process of developing core outcome sets. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcome and outcome measures reporting in posterior prolapse surgical trials. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of different surgical interventions for posterior compartment vaginal prolapse. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two researchers independently assessed studies for inclusion, evaluated methodological quality, and extracted relevant data. Methodological quality, outcome reporting quality and publication characteristics were evaluated. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-seven interventional and four follow-up trials were included. Seventeen studies enrolled patients with posterior compartment surgery as the sole procedure and 14 with multicompartment procedures. Eighty-three reported outcomes and 45 outcome measures were identified. The most frequently reported outcomes were blood loss (20 studies, 74%), pain (18 studies, 66%) and infection (16 studies, 59%). CONCLUSIONS: Wide variations in reported outcomes and outcome measures were found. Until a core outcome set is established, we propose an interim core outcome set that could include the three most commonly reported outcomes of the following domains: hospitalization; intraoperative, postoperative urinary, gastrointestinal, vaginal and sexual outcomes; clinical effectiveness. PROSPERO: CRD42017062456.

Definitions of Pediatric Functional Abdominal Pain Disorders and Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review definitions of functional abdominal pain orders (FAPDs) and outcome measures used in therapeutic randomized controlled trials in pediatric FAPDs adhering to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology recommendations. STUDY DESIGN: Cochrane, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cinahl databases were systematically searched from inception to April 2018. English-written therapeutic randomized controlled trials concerning FAPDs in children aged 4-18 years were included. Definitions of FAPDs, interventions, outcome measures, measurement instruments, and outcome assessors of each study were tabulated descriptively. Quality was assessed using the Delphi List. RESULTS: A total of 4771 articles were found, of which 64 articles were included (n = 25, 39% of high methodologic quality). The Rome III (50%), Rome II (17%), Apley (16%), and author-defined (17%) criteria were used to define FAPDs. Fourteen studies (22%) assessed a pharmacologic, 25 (39%) a dietary, and 25 (39%) a psychosocial intervention. Forty-four studies (69%) predefined their primary outcomes. In total, 211 reported predefined outcome measures were grouped into 23 different outcome domains; the majority being patient-reported (n = 27, 61%). Of the 14 studies that evaluated a pharmacologic intervention, 12 (86%) reported on adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Studies on pediatric FAPDs are of limited methodologic quality and show large heterogeneity and inconsistency in defining FAPDs and outcome measures used. Development of a core outcome set is needed to make comparison between intervention studies possible.

Toward a Core Outcome Set for Head, Neck, and Respiratory Disease in Mucopolysaccharidosis Type II: Systematic Literature Review and Assessment of Heterogeneity in Outcome Reporting

Abstract The mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS) are a relatively uncommon group of inherited metabolic disorders, with significant negative implications for life span and aspects of quality of life. Their rarity means that producing evidence to guide best practice has often entailed assimilating findings from multiple studies. Core outcome sets (COS) are being increasingly used across medicine as a potential solution to the problems arising from heterogeneous reporting of outcomes in effectiveness studies. A COS is a recommended minimum set of outcomes that should be measured for a given condition in an effectiveness study, with the ultimate aim of increasing the value of clinical information by enabling meaningful comparison and combination of data from various sources. A systematic review identified 41 outcomes measured in published studies and ongoing and completed clinical trials, with individual outcomes being measured using a variety of measurement instruments/tools. This work represents the important initial steps in the development of COS for head, neck, and respiratory disorders in MPS type II, raising awareness of the extent of heterogeneity in outcome reporting and determining the scope of outcomes and corresponding instruments currently used. The next step will be to use the generated "longlist" of outcomes to develop an electronic Delphi prioritization exercise with the intention of reaching a consensus regarding the most important outcomes to measure in effectiveness studies for head, neck, and respiratory disease in MPS type II.

Core outcome sets for research and clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: This masterclass introduces the topic of core outcome sets, describing rationale and methods for developing them, and providing some examples that are relevant for clinical research and practice. METHOD: A core outcome set is a minimum consensus-based set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials for a specific health condition and/or intervention. Issues surrounding outcome assessment, such as selective reporting and inconsistency across studies, can be addressed by the development of a core set. As suggested by key initiatives in this field (i.e. OMERACT and COMET), the development requires achieving consensus on: (1) core outcome domains and (2) core outcome measurement instruments. Different methods can be used to reach consensus, including: literature systematic reviews to inform the process, qualitative research with clinicians and patients, group discussions (e.g. nominal group technique), and structured surveys (e.g. Delphi technique). Various stakeholders should be involved in the process, with particular attention to patients. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Several COSs have been developed for musculoskeletal conditions including a longstanding one for low back pain, IMMPACT recommendations on outcomes for chronic pain, and OMERACT COSs for hip, knee and hand osteoarthritis. There is a lack of COSs for neurological, geriatric, cardio-respiratory and pediatric conditions, therefore, future research could determine the value of developing COSs for these conditions.