Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis Estimates the Minimal Detectable Change of the Geriatric Depression Scale-15.

OBJECTIVE: To use individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to estimate the minimal detectable change (MDC) of the Geriatric Depression Scale-15 (GDS-15) and to examine whether MDC may differ based on participant characteristics and study-level variables. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a secondary analysis of data from an IPDMA on the depression screening accuracy of the GDS. Datasets from studies published in any language were eligible for the present study if they included GDS-15 scores for participants aged 60 or older. MDC of the GDS-15 was estimated via random-effects meta-analysis using 2.77 (MDC95) and 1.41 (MDC67) standard errors of measurement (SEM). Subgroup analyses were used to evaluate differences in MDC by participant age and sex. Meta-regression was conducted to assess for differences based on study-level variables, including mean age, proportion male, proportion with major depression, and recruitment setting. RESULTS: 5,876 participants (mean age 76 years, 40% male, 11% with major depression) from 21 studies were included. The MDC95 was 3.81 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.59, 4.04), and MDC67 was 1.95 (95% CI 1.83, 2.03). The difference in MDC95 was 0.26 points (95% CI 0.04, 0.48) between ≥ 80-year-olds and < 80-year-olds; MDC95 was similar for females and males (0.05, 95% CI -0.12, 0.22). The MDC95 increased by 0.29 points (95% CI 0.17, 0.41) per 10% increase in proportion of participants with major depression; mean age had a small association (0.04 points, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.09) with MDC95, but sex and recruitment setting were not significantly associated. CONCLUSIONS: The MDC95 was 3.81 points and MDC67 was 1.95 points. MDC95 increased with the proportion of participants with major depression. Results can be used to evaluate individual changes in depression symptoms and as a threshold for assessing minimal clinical important difference estimates.

Comparison of Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression - Depression subscale scores by administration mode: An individual participant data differential item functioning meta-analysis.

Administration mode of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may influence responses. We assessed if Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Depression subscale (HADS-D) item responses and scores were associated with administration mode. We compared (1) self-administration versus interview-administration; within self-administration (2) research or medical setting versus private; and (3) pen-and-paper versus electronic; and within interview-administration (4) in-person versus phone. We analysed individual participant data meta-analysis datasets with item-level data for the PHQ-9 (N = 34,529), EPDS (N = 16,813), and HADS-D (N = 16,768). We used multiple indicator multiple cause models to assess differential item functioning (DIF) by administration mode. We found statistically significant DIF for most items on all measures due to large samples, but influence on total scores was negligible. In 10 comparisons conducted across the PHQ-9, EPDS, and HADS-D, Pearson's correlations and intraclass correlation coefficients between latent depression symptom scores from models that did or did not account for DIF were between 0.995 and 1.000. Total PHQ-9, EPDS, and HADS-D scores did not differ materially across administration modes. Researcher and clinicians who evaluate depression symptoms with these questionnaires can select administration methods based on patient preferences, feasibility, or cost.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: This paper was jointly developed by Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Quality of Life Research, Journal of Patient Reported Outcomes, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes and jointly published by Elsevier Inc, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, and BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.

PPIE in a technical research study: Using public involvement to refine the concept and understanding and move towards a multidimensional concept of disability.

BACKGROUND: Disability is often an essentialised and oversimplified concept. We propose refining this while incorporating the multidimensional nature of disability by increasing the use of existing survey questions and their corresponding data to enrich, broaden and inform understandings of disability. METHODS: We combined patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) with focus groups and concept mapping to collaboratively map disability survey questions into conceptual models of disability with six members of the public with lived experiences of disability. RESULTS: Using reflexive thematic analysis, we identified three qualitative themes and eight subthemes through a series of four PPIE activities: (1) understanding concepts of disability based on individual experience, subthemes: 1.1-preference for the biopsychosocial model, 1.2-'Reviewing' instead of mapping survey questions and 1.3-comparing questions to real life; (2) consistency between understanding needs and implementing adjustments, subthemes: 2.1-connecting preparation and operation, 2.2-inclusivity and adjustments in activities and 2.3-feedback for improving activities and (3) real-world applications-targeted awareness raising, subthemes: 3.1-who, where, what and how to share activity findings and results, 3.2-sharing with human resource and equality, diversity and inclusion professionals. CONCLUSION: Members of the public who collaborated in these activities felt empowered, engaged and supported throughout this study. This approach offers a model for other researchers to cede power to the public over the research aspects typically reserved for researchers. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We involved members of the public with lived experience throughout this study-co-design, co-facilitation, collaboratively mapping the disability or disability-related survey questions into conceptual models of disability, evaluation of the activities, co-analysis and co-authorship.

A blueprint for patient and public involvement in the development of a reporting guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, projects to develop reporting guidelines have attempted to integrate the perspectives of patients and public members. Best practices for patient and public involvement (PPI) in such projects have not yet been established. We recently developed an extension of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), to be used for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) for OMIs 2024. Patients and public members formed a small but impactful stakeholder group. We critically evaluated the PPI component in this project and developed recommendations for conducting PPI when developing reporting guidelines. MAIN TEXT: A patient partner was an integral research team member at the project development and grant application stage. Once the project started, five patient and public contributors (PPCs) were recruited to participate in the Delphi study; three PPCs contributed to subsequent steps. We collected quantitative feedback through surveys; qualitative feedback was garnered through a focus group discussion after the Delphi study and through debrief meetings after subsequent project activities. Feedback was thematically combined with reflections from the research team, and was predominantly positive. The following themes emerged: importance of PPI partnership, number of PPCs involved, onboarding, design of Delphi surveys, flexibility in the process, complexity of PPI in methodological research, and power imbalances. Impacts of PPI on the content and presentation of the reporting guideline were evident, and reciprocal learning between PPCs and the research team occurred throughout the project. Lessons learned were translated into 17 recommendations for future projects. CONCLUSION: Integrating PPI in the development of PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 was feasible and considered valuable by PPCs and the research team. Our approach can be applied by others wishing to integrate PPI in developing reporting guidelines.

Evaluating the acceptability of remote cognitive remediation from the perspective of psychosis service users.

OBJECTIVES: Cognitive remediation (CR) can reduce the cognitive difficulties experienced by people with psychosis. Adapting CR to be delivered remotely provides new opportunities for extending its use. However, doing so requires further evaluation of its acceptability from service users' views. We evaluate the acceptability of therapist-supported remote CR from the perspectives of service users using participatory service user-centred methods. METHOD: After receiving 12 weeks of therapist-supported remote CR, service users were interviewed by a service user researcher following a semi-structured 18-question interview guide. Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis with themes and codes further validated by a Lived Experience Advisory Panel and member checking. RESULTS: The study recruited 26 participants, almost all of whom reported high acceptability of remote CR, and some suggested improvements. Four themes emerged: (1) perceived treatment benefits, (2) remote versus in-person therapy, (3) the therapist's role, and (4) how it could be better. CONCLUSIONS: This study used comprehensive service user involvement methods. For some participants, technology use remained a challenge and addressing these difficulties detracted from the therapy experience. These outcomes align with existing research on remote therapy, suggesting that remote CR can expand choice and improve access to treatment for psychosis service users once barriers are addressed. Future use of remote CR should consider technology training and equipment provision to facilitate therapy for service users and therapists.

Estimating the smallest worthwhile difference of antidepressants: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% of patients experience substantial improvement in depression after 2 months without treatment, and 45% with antidepressants. The smallest worthwhile difference (SWD) refers to an intervention's smallest beneficial effect over a comparison patients deem worthwhile given treatment burdens (harms, expenses and inconveniences), but is undetermined for antidepressants. OBJECTIVE: Estimating the SWD of commonly prescribed antidepressants for depression compared to no treatment. METHODS: The SWD was estimated as a patient-required difference in response rates between antidepressants and no treatment after 2 months. An online cross-sectional survey using Prolific, MQ Mental Health and Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing services in the UK and USA between October 2022 and January 2023 garnered participants (N=935) that were a mean age of 44.1 (SD=13.9) and 66% women (n=617). FINDINGS: Of 935 participants, 124 reported moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms but were not in treatment, 390 were in treatment and 495 reported absent-to-mild symptoms with or without treatment experiences. The median SWD was a 20% (IQR=10-30%) difference in response rates for people with moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms, not in treatment, and willing to consider antidepressants, and 25% (IQR=10-35%) for the full sample. CONCLUSIONS: Our observed SWDs mean that the current 15% antidepressant benefit over no treatment was sufficient for one in three people to accept antidepressants given the burdens, but two in three expected greater treatment benefits. IMPLICATIONS: While a minority may be satisfied with the best currently available antidepressants, more effective and/or less burdensome medications are needed, with more attention given to patient perspectives.

A qualitative interview study exploring the psychological health impacts of the SPIN-CHAT program among people with systemic sclerosis at the onset of COVID-19: perceptions of trial participants and research team members.

PURPOSE: Explore trial participants' and research team members' perceptions of the impact of the videoconference-based, supportive care program (SPIN-CHAT Program) during early COVID-19 for individuals with systemic sclerosis (SSc). METHODS: Data were collected cross-sectionally. A social constructivist paradigm was adopted, and one-on-one videoconference-based, semi-structured interviews were conducted with SPIN-CHAT Trial participants and research team members. A hybrid inductive-deductive approach and reflexive thematic analysis were used. RESULTS: Of the 40 SPIN-CHAT Trial participants and 28 research team members approached, 30 trial participants (Mean age = 54.9; SD = 13.0 years) and 22 research team members agreed to participate. Those who took part in interviews had similar characteristics to those who declined. Five themes were identified: (1) The SPIN-CHAT Program conferred a range of positive psychological health outcomes, (2) People who don't have SSc don't get it: The importance of SSc-specific programming, (3) The group-based format of the SPIN-CHAT Program created a safe space to connect and meet similar others, (4) The structure and schedule of the SPIN-CHAT Program reduced feelings of boredom and contributed to enhanced psychological health, (5) The necessity of knowledge, skills, and tools to self-manage SSc and navigate COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Participants' and research team members' perspectives elucidated SPIN-CHAT Program benefits and how these benefits may have been realized. Results underscore the importance of social support from similar others, structure, and self-management to enhance psychological health during COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04335279)IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe videoconference-based, supportive care SPIN-CHAT Program enhanced psychological health amongst individuals affected by systemic sclerosis.SPIN-CHAT Program participants and research team members shared that being around similar others, program structure, and self-management support were important and may have contributed to enhanced psychological health.Further efforts are required to explore experiences within supportive care programs to better understand if and how psychological health is impacted.

Procedural justice and forensic mental health: An introduction and future directions.

This article advocates for integrating procedural justice principles into forensic mental health services to enhance patient engagement and autonomy. Procedural justice, broadly defined as fair decision-making processes, is introduced and key principles including voice, neutrality, respect and trustworthiness are described. Evidence suggestive of positive outcomes following procedural justice experiences, such as improved satisfaction, collaboration and reduced perceptions of coercion is outlined. Practical applications are suggested, including staff training and reflective practices using procedural justice principles. The article then calls for further research to explore patients' and staff members' experiences of procedural justice in forensic settings, develop measurement tools, undertake intervention studies and establish causal links between procedural justice and outcomes important for forensic patients.

A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials.

Background: Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials. Methods: As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials. Findings: Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)-thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators. Interpretation: There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence. Funding: SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded.

Development of a framework and research impact capture tool for nursing, midwifery, allied health professions, healthcare science, pharmacy and psychology (NMAHPPs).

BACKGROUND: There is an ambitious target to create a UK clinical academic workforce representing 1% of clinicians from nursing, midwifery, the allied health professions, healthcare science, pharmacy and psychology (NMAHPPs). Understanding and recording the impact that clinical academics make across healthcare services is crucial if we are to grow, value and support this highly skilled workforce group. However, it is currently difficult to systematically record, collate and report the impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. The aims of this project were to i) develop a framework outlining the impacts that were important for key stakeholder groups, and ii) create and pilot a research impact capture tool to record these impacts. METHODS: The framework was developed from the existing literature. It was refined, remodelled and approved by multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement, including patient and public representatives, healthcare managers and research-active clinicians. The framework was converted into a series of questions to create an electronic research impact capture tool, which was also refined through feedback from these stakeholder groups. The impact capture tool was piloted with research-active clinicians across a large NHS Trust and its associated organisations. RESULTS: The impact framework contained eight elements: clinical background, research and service improvement activities, research capacity building, research into practice, patients and service users, research dissemination, economics and research funding, and collaborations. Thirty individuals provided data for the research impact capture tool pilot (55% response rate). Respondents reported a range of positive impacts representing all elements of the framework. Importantly, research-activity appeared to be a key driver for recruitment and retention in the sample population. CONCLUSIONS: The impact capture tool is a feasible method of recording the breadth of impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. We encourage other organisations to collaboratively use and refine our impact capture tool, with the aim of standardising reporting, and facilitating discussions about research activity within clinical appraisal. Pooling and comparing data will also allow comparison between organisations, and assessment of change over time or after implementation of interventions aimed at supporting and increasing research activity.

Exploring research team members' and trial participants' perceptions of acceptability and implementation within one videoconference-based supportive care program for individuals affected by systemic sclerosis during COVID-19: a qualitative interview study.

The SPIN-CHAT Program was designed to support mental health among individuals with systemic sclerosis (SSc; commonly known as scleroderma) and at least mild anxiety symptoms at the onset of COVID-19. The program was formally evaluated in the SPIN-CHAT Trial. Little is known about program and trial acceptability, and factors impacting implementation from the perspectives of research team members and trial participants. Thus, the propose of this follow-up study was to explore research team members' and trial participants' experiences with the program and trial to identify factors impacting acceptability and successful implementation. Data were collected cross-sectionally through one-on-one, videoconference-based, semi-structured interviews with 22 research team members and 30 purposefully recruited trial participants (Mage = 54.9, SD = 13.0 years). A social constructivist paradigm was adopted, and data were analyzed thematically. Data were organized into seven themes: (i) getting started: the importance of prolonged engagement and exceeding expectations; (ii) designing the program and trial: including multiple features; (iii) training: research team members are critical to positive program and trial experiences; (iv) offering the program and trial: it needs to be flexible and patient-oriented; (v) maximizing engagement: navigating and managing group dynamics; (vi) delivering a videoconference-based supportive care intervention: necessary, appreciated, and associated with some barriers; and (vii) refining the program and trial: considering modification when offered beyond the period of COVID-19 restrictions. Trial participants were satisfied with and found the SPIN-CHAT Program and Trial to be acceptable. Results offer implementation data that can guide the design, development, and refinement of other supportive care programs seeking to promote psychological health during and beyond COVID-19.

The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network COVID-19 Home-isolation Activities Together (SPIN-CHAT) Program, a videoconference-based supportive care program, was designed to protect and enhance mental health in individuals affected by systemic sclerosis (commonly known as scleroderma) with at least mild anxiety symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. A trial was conducted to evaluate the SPIN-CHAT Program, and results were generally positive. However, important gaps in knowledge remained. Specifically, research team members' and participants' perceptions of SPIN-CHAT Trial acceptability (including satisfaction) and factors impacting implementation of the SPIN-CHAT Program had not yet been explored. To fill this gap, we conducted one-on-one, videoconference-based, semi-structured interviewed with 22 research team members and 30 purposefully recruited trial participants. Interviews sought to gain insights into research team members' and trial participants' experiences within the SPIN-CHAT Program, delivery preferences, and aspects that were/were not beneficial. Findings suggest research team members and participants valued the SPIN-CHAT Program and found the trial to be acceptable. Results also highlight important factors to consider when designing, developing, and/or refining videoconference-based supportive care programs.