Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of point-of-care outcome assessment tools in Chinese palliative care clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: A standardized national approach to routinely assessing palliative care patients helps improve patient outcomes. However, a quality improvement program-based on person centered outcomes within palliative care is lacking in Mainland China. The well-established Australian Palliative Care Outcome Collaboration (PCOC) national model improves palliative care quality. This study aimed to culturally adapt and validate three measures that form part of the PCOC program for palliative care clinical practice in China: The PCOC Symptom Assessment Scale (PCOC SAS), Palliative Care Problem Severity Scale (PCPSS), Palliative Care Phase. METHODS: A study was conducted on cross-cultural adaptation and validation of PCOC SAS, PCPSS and Palliative Care Phase, involving translation methods, cognitive interviewing, and psychometric testing through paired assessments. RESULTS: Cross-cultural adaptation highlighted the need to strengthen the link between the patient's care plan and the outcome measures to improve outcomes, and the concept of distress in PCOC SAS. Analysis of 368 paired assessments (n = 135 inpatients, 22 clinicians) demonstrated that the PCOC SAS and PCPSS had good and acceptable coherence (Cronbach's a = 0.85, 0.75 respectively). Palliative Care Phase detected patients' urgent needs. PCOC SAS and PCPSS showed fair discriminant and concurrent validity. Inter-rater reliability was fair for Palliative Care Phase (k = 0.31) and PCPSS (k = 0.23-0.30), except for PCPSS-pain, which was moderate (k = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese version of PCOC SAS, PCPSS, and Palliative Care Phase can be used to assess outcomes as part of routine clinical practice in Mainland China. Comprehensive clinical education regarding the assessment tools is necessary to help improve the inter-rater reliability.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set and reporting guidelines for locoregional treatment in neoadjuvant systemic breast cancer treatment trials: the PRECEDENT project.

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant systemic anticancer therapy (neoSACT) is increasingly used in the treatment of early breast cancer. Response to therapy is prognostic and allows locoregional and adjuvant systemic treatments to be tailored to minimise morbidity and optimise oncological outcomes and quality of life. Accurate information about locoregional treatments following neoSACT is vital to allow the translation of downstaging benefits into practice and facilitate meaningful interpretation of oncological outcomes, particularly locoregional recurrence. Reporting of locoregional treatments in neoSACT studies, however, is currently poor. The development of a core outcome set (COS) and reporting guidelines is one strategy by which this may be improved. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A COS for reporting locoregional treatment (surgery and radiotherapy) in neoSACT trials will be developed in accordance with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development guidelines. Reporting guidance will be developed concurrently.The project will have three phases: (1) generation of a long list of relevant outcome domains and reporting items from a systematic review of published neoSACT studies and interviews with key stakeholders. Identified items and domains will be categorised and formatted into Delphi consensus questionnaire items. (2) At least two rounds of an international online Delphi survey in which at least 250 key stakeholders (surgeons/oncologists/radiologists/pathologists/trialists/methodologists) will score the importance of reporting each outcome. (3) A consensus meeting with key stakeholders to discuss and agree the final COS and reporting guidance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the consensus process will be obtained from the Queen's University Belfast Faculty Ethics Committee. The COS/reporting guidelines will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. Dissemination materials will be produced in collaboration with our steering group and patient advocates so the results can be shared widely. REGISTRATION: The study has been prospectively registered on the COMET website (https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2854).

The impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomized clinical trials on acupuncture: A meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sole impact of blinding patients and outcome assessors in acupuncture randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on treatment effects while considering the type of outcome measures. METHODS: We searched databases for the meta-analyses on acupuncture with both blinded and non-blinded RCTs. Mixed-effects meta-regression models estimated the average ratio of odds ratios (ROR) and differences in standardized mean differences (dSMD) for non-blinded RCTs versus blinded mixed-effects meta-regression model. RESULTS: The study included 96 meta-analyses (1012 trials). The average ROR for lack of patient blinding was 1.08 (95% confidence intervals 0.79-1.49) in 18 meta-analyses with binary patient-reported outcomes. The average ROR for lack of outcome assessor blinding was 0.98 (0.77-1.24) in 43 meta-analyses with binary subjective outcomes. The average dSMD was -0.38 (-0.96 to 0.20) in 10 meta-analyses with continuous patient-reported outcomes. The average dSMD was -0.13 (-0.45 to 0.18) in 25 meta-analyses with continuous subjective outcomes. The results of the subgroup analysis were consistent with the primary analysis findings. CONCLUSIONS: Blinding of participants and outcome assessors does not significantly influence acupuncture treatment efficacy. It underscores the practical difficulties of blinding in acupuncture RCTs and the necessity to distinguish between trials with and without successful blinding to understand treatment expectations' effects. Enhancing blinding procedures' quality and assessment in future research is crucial for improving RCTs' internal validity and reliability.

Study protocol: a core outcome set for perioperative exercise clinical effectiveness trials for lung cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Outcome assessment in perioperative exercise trials for lung cancer is heterogeneous, often omitting those that are important and patient-relevant. This heterogeneity hinders the synthesis of evidence. To address this issue, a core outcome set, an agreed-upon standardized set of outcomes to be measured and reported, is required to reduce heterogeneity among outcome measurements. This study protocol describes the methodology, aiming to develop a core outcome set for perioperative exercise intervention trials for lung cancer in clinical practice. METHODS: The project will follow the standard methodology recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative, which is divided into four steps. Stage I: Conducting a scoping review of outcomes reported in clinical trials and protocols to develop a list of potential outcome domains. Stage II: Conducting semi-structured interviews to obtain important outcomes for patients. Stage III: Choosing the most important outcomes by conducting two rounds of the Delphi exercise. Stage IV: Achieving a consensus in a face-to-face meeting to discuss the final core outcome set. DISCUSSION: This is the first project identified for the core outcome set of perioperative exercise trials in lung cancer, which will enhance the quality, comparability, and usability of future trials and positively impact perioperative exercise and the care of patients with lung cancer. TRIALS REGISTRATION: Core Outcome Measurement in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database registration: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2091.

Beating the empty pelvis syndrome: the PelvEx Collaborative core outcome set study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The empty pelvis syndrome is a significant source of morbidity following pelvic exenteration surgery. It remains poorly defined with research in this field being heterogeneous and of low quality. Furthermore, there has been minimal engagement with patient representatives following pelvic exenteration with respect to the empty pelvic syndrome. 'PelvEx-Beating the empty pelvis syndrome' aims to engage both patient representatives and healthcare professionals to achieve an international consensus on a core outcome set, pathophysiology and mitigation of the empty pelvis syndrome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A modified-Delphi approach will be followed with a three-stage study design. First, statements will be longlisted using a recent systematic review, healthcare professional event, patient and public engagement, and Delphi piloting. Second, statements will be shortlisted using up to three rounds of online modified Delphi. Third, statements will be confirmed and instruments for measurable statements selected using a virtual patient-representative consensus meeting, and finally a face-to-face healthcare professional consensus meeting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Southampton Faculty of Medicine ethics committee has approved this protocol, which is registered as a study with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative. Publication of this study will increase the potential for comparative research to further understanding and prevent the empty pelvis syndrome. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05683795.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Dysphagia Interventions in Parkinson's disease (COS-DIP): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Current clinical trials on swallowing disorders (dysphagia) in Parkinson's disease (PD) apply a high variety of outcomes and different outcome measures making comparative effectiveness research challenging. Furthermore, views of patients and dysphagia clinicians when selecting trial outcomes have not been considered in the past, thus study results may have little importance to them. This study aims to develop an agreed standardised Core Outcome Set for Dysphagia Interventions in Parkinson's disease (COS-DIP), systematically measured and reported as a minimum for all clinical trials. It will also comprise guidance on outcome definitions, outcome measures and time points of measurement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The COS-DIP development will comprise five stages following established methodology: (1) a recent scoping review on all applied outcomes, their definitions, methods and time points of measurement in clinical trials in dysphagia in PD, (2) online surveys and focus groups with clinicians, patients, caregivers and family members to identify outcomes that are important to them, (3) an identified list of outcomes based on results of stage 1 and 2, (4) three round online Delphi survey with up to 200 key stakeholders to determine core outcomes and (5) two online consensus meetings with up to 40 representative key stakeholders to agree on all outcomes, definitions, methods and time points of measurement in the final COS-DIP. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Full ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee, School of Linguistic, Speech and Communication Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, on 15 May 2023 (HT27). Dissemination of the COS-DIP will be enhanced through presentations at (inter-) national conferences and through peer-reviewed, open access publications of related manuscripts. Lay and professional information sheets and infographics will be circulated through relevant patient and professional organisations and networks. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The COS-DIP study was registered prospectively with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database on 24 September 2021 (www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1942).

Developing a core outcome set for the health outcomes for children and adults with congenital oesophageal atresia and/or tracheo-oesophageal fistula: OCELOT task group study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Heterogeneity in reported outcomes of infants with oesophageal atresia (OA) with or without tracheo-oesophageal fistula (TOF) prevents effective data pooling. Core outcome sets (COS) have been developed for many conditions to standardise outcome reporting, facilitate meta-analysis and improve the relevance of research for patients and families. Our aim is to develop an internationally-agreed, comprehensive COS for OA-TOF, relevant from birth through to transition and adulthood. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A long list of outcomes will be generated using (1) a systematic review of existing studies on OA-TOF and (2) qualitative research with children (patients), adults (patients) and families involving focus groups, semistructured interviews and self-reported outcome activity packs. A two-phase Delphi survey will then be completed by four key stakeholder groups: (1) patients (paediatric and adult); (2) families; (3) healthcare professionals; and (4) researchers. Phase I will include stakeholders individually rating the importance and relevance of each long-listed outcome using a 9-point Likert scale, with the option to suggest additional outcomes not already included. During phase II, stakeholders will review summarised results from phase I relative to their own initial score and then will be asked to rescore the outcome based on this information. Responses from phase II will be summarised using descriptive statistics and a predefined definition of consensus for inclusion or exclusion of outcomes. Following the Delphi process, stakeholder experts will be invited to review data at a consensus meeting and agree on a COS for OA-TOF. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was sought through the Health Research Authority via the Integrated Research Application System, registration no. 297026. However, approval was deemed not to be required, so study sponsorship and oversight were provided by Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust. The study has been prospectively registered with the COMET Initiative. The study will be published in an open access forum.

Developing a set of patient-centered outcomes for routine use in endometriosis: An international Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: There is large variation in individual patient care for endometriosis. A uniform approach to measure outcomes could be incorporated into routine clinical practice to personalize and monitor treatments and potentially improve the quality of care. The aim of this study is to identify a group of patient-centered outcomes for use in routine endometriosis care which are relevant to all patient profiles. MATERIAL AND METHODS: By means of a modified two-round Delphi study with international representation including healthcare professionals, researchers and patient representatives (51 participants, 16 countries) we developed a set of patient-centered measurements. The participants evaluated 47 Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and 30 Clinician Reported Outcome Measures (CROMs) regarding their feasibility and relevance for their use in routine endometriosis care. After the two rounds of quotation, meetings of the experts were convened to participate in a final discussion to finalize the consensus of the final set of included measures. RESULTS: The final set of patient-centered outcomes includes six PROMs (measuring symptomatic impact, pain, work productivity and quality of life) and 10 CROMs (measuring clinical, imaging and surgical indicators). A supplementary list of outcomes was added to include important dimensions that were considered essential by the expert panel but are not relevant to all patients. In addition the need for development of specific tools (PROMs) measuring the psychological impact and the impact in sexual activity of endometriosis was highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a set of patient-centered outcomes measures in endometriosis care. The selected outcomes comprise the common features for all patients suffering from endometriosis. adapted for use in routine practice. The list of outcomes has been adapted for use in routine practice from which clinicians can chose, depending on their needs.

How well can the clinician appraise the patient's perception of the severity and impact of their back problem?

PURPOSE: A main concern of patients with back problems is pain and its impact on function and quality of life. These are subjective phenomena, and should be probed during the clinical consultation so that the physician can ascertain the extent of the problem. This study evaluated the agreement between clinicians' and patients' independent ratings of patient status on the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI). METHODS: This was an analysis of the data from 5 spine specialists and 108 patients, in two centres. Prior to the consultation, the patient completed the COMI. After the consultation, the clinician (blind to the patient's version) also completed a COMI. Concordance was assessed by % agreement, Kappa values, Bland-Altman plots, Spearman rank, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients and comparisons of mean values, as appropriate. RESULTS: Agreement regarding the "main problem" (back pain, leg/buttock pain, sensory disturbances, other) was 83%, Kappa = 0.70 (95%CI 0.58-0.81). Moderate/strong correlations were found between the doctors' and patients' COMI-item ratings (0.48-0.74; p < 0.0001), although compared with the patients' ratings the doctors systematically underestimated absolute values for leg pain (p = 0.002) and dissatisfaction with symptom state (p = 0.002), and overestimated how much the patient's function was impaired (p = 0.029). CONCLUSION: The doctors were able to ascertain the location of the main problem and the multidimensional outcome score with good accuracy, but some individual domains were systematically underestimated (pain, symptom-specific well-being) or overestimated (impairment of function). More detailed/direct questioning on these domains during the consultation might deliver a better appreciation of the impact of the back problem on the patient's daily life.

Core outcomes in nerve surgery: development of a core outcome set for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow.

OBJECTIVE: Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE) is common, affecting 1%-6% of the population. Despite this, there remains a lack of consensus regarding optimal treatment. This is primarily due to the difficulty one encounters when trying to assess the literature. Outcomes are inconsistently reported, which makes comparing studies or developing meta-analyses difficult or even impossible. Thus, there is a need for a core outcome set (COS) for UNE (COS-UNE) to help address this problem. The objective of this study was to utilize a modified Delphi method to develop COS-UNE. METHODS: A 5-stage approach was utilized to develop COS-UNE: stage 1, consortium development; 2, literature review to identify potential outcome measures; 3, Delphi survey to develop consensus on outcomes for inclusion; 4, Delphi survey to develop definitions; and 5, consensus meeting to finalize the COS and definitions. The study followed the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) recommendations. RESULTS: The Core Outcomes in Nerve Surgery (COINS) Consortium comprised 21 participants, all neurological surgeons representing 11 countries. The final COS-UNE consisted of 22 data points/outcomes covering the domains of demographic characteristics, diagnostics, patient-reported outcomes, motor/sensory outcomes, and complications. Appropriate instruments, methods of testing, and definitions were set. The consensus minimum duration of follow-up was 6 months, with the consensus optimal timepoints for assessment identified as preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified consensus data points/outcomes and also provided definitions and specific scales to be utilized to help ensure that clinicians are consistent in their reporting across studies on UNE. This COS should serve as a minimum set of data to be collected in all future neurosurgical studies on UNE. The authors hope that clinicians evaluating ulnar neuropathy will incorporate this COS into routine practice and that future studies will consider this COS in the design phase.

COHESION: a core outcome set for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity in outcomes reported in trials of interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy (NE) makes evaluating the effectiveness of treatments difficult. Developing a core outcome set for NE treatment would enable researchers to measure and report the same outcomes in future trials. This would minimise waste, ensure relevant outcomes are measured and enable evidence synthesis. Therefore, we aimed to develop a core outcome set for treating NE. METHODS: Outcomes identified from a systematic review of the literature and interviews with parents were prioritised by stakeholders (n = 99 parents/caregivers, n = 101 healthcare providers, and n = 22 researchers/ academics) in online Delphi surveys. Agreement on the outcomes was achieved at online consensus meetings attended by n = 10 parents, n = 18 healthcare providers, and n = 13 researchers/ academics. RESULTS: Seven outcomes were included in the final core outcome set: survival; brain injury on imaging; neurological status at discharge; cerebral palsy; general cognitive ability; quality of life of the child, and adverse events related to treatment. CONCLUSION: We developed a core outcome set for the treatment of NE. This will allow future trials to measure and report the same outcomes and ensure results can be compared. Future work should identify how best to measure the COS. IMPACT: We have identified seven outcomes that should be measured and reported in all studies for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. Previously, a core outcome set for neonatal encephalopathy treatments did not exist. This will help to reduce heterogeneity in outcomes reported in clinical trials and other studies, and help researchers identify the best treatments for neonatal encephalopathy.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for neonatal sepsis (NESCOS).

Neonatal sepsis is a serious public health problem; however, there is substantial heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported in research evaluating the effectiveness of the treatments. Therefore, we aim to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for studies evaluating the effectiveness of treatments for neonatal sepsis. Since a systematic review of key outcomes from randomised trials of therapeutic interventions in neonatal sepsis was published recently, we will complement this with a qualitative systematic review of the key outcomes of neonatal sepsis identified by parents, other family members, parent representatives, healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers. We will interpret the outcomes of both studies using a previously established framework. Stakeholders across three different groups i.e., (1) researchers, (2) healthcare providers, and (3) patients' parents/family members and parent representatives will rate the importance of the outcomes in an online Real-Time Delphi Survey. Afterwards, consensus meetings will be held to agree on the final COS through online discussions with key stakeholders. This COS is expected to minimize outcome heterogeneity in measurements and publications, improve comparability and synthesis, and decrease research waste.

What should be measured and reported in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with acute pancreatitis? A study protocol for establishing a core outcome set.

INTRODUCTION: Acute pancreatitis (AP) is characterised by inflammation of the exocrine pancreas, which potentially leads to local complications and organ failure resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. A long-term follow-up by an experienced team is needed. Currently, a variety of outcome measures are used in clinical trials for patients with AP. However, due to heterogeneous and selective outcome reporting across trials of interventions, it is hard to combine or compare the trial results compromising systematic evaluations of effectiveness and safety. A core outcome set is demanded to standardise reporting for the management of AP in clinical trials, so as to conduct systematic reviews and to improve the quality of the existing evidence base on the management of AP. We designed a study to establish a core outcome set (COS) on what indicators should be measured and reported in clinical trials of patients with AP (COS-AP). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study protocol outlines the following five phases: Phase I will be a systematic review of randomised control trials and semistructured interviews with patients to initially establish a preliminary list of potential outcomes. Phase II will be the recruitment of key stakeholders' groups comprising experts in pancreatic disease, clinical researchers, methodologists, journal editors and patients. Phase III will be two rounds of the Delphi surveys with key stakeholder groups. Phase IV will be a consensus on the outcomes that should be included in a final COS-AP. Phase V will be dissemination of COS-AP. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (BREC) of West China Hospital of Sichuan University (2020 No.691). The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database as study 2573.

Development of a core outcome set for cardiovascular diabetology: a methodological framework.

Background: Cardiovascular diabetology is an emergent field focusing on all aspects of diabetes/cardiovascular interrelationship and metabolic syndrome. High-quality evidence needs to be provided to determine the efficacy and safety of interventions in cardiovascular diabetology. The heterogeneity of outcomes among trials limits the comparison of results, and some outcomes are not always meaningful to end-users. The cardiovascular diabetology core outcome set (COS) study aims to develop a COS of interventions for cardiovascular diabetology. In this paper, we introduce the methodological framework for developing the COS. Methods: The COS development will include the following steps: (a) establish the COS groups of stakeholders, including international steering committee, Delphi survey group, and consensus meeting group; (b) systematic reviews of outcomes used in trials of cardiovascular diabetology; (c) semistructured interview of stakeholders for outcomes of cardiovascular diabetology; (d) generate a list of candidate outcomes and determine the original outcome pool; (e) Delphi survey with stakeholders of cardiovascular diabetology to select potential core outcomes; and (f) review and endorse the cardiovascular diabetology COS by expert consensus meeting. Conclusions: This current study reports the methodological framework to develop a COS in cardiovascular diabetology and will provide evidence for the future development of COS in cardiovascular diabetology.

The NeoPACE study: study protocol for the development of a core outcome set for neonatal palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal death is the leading category of death in children under the age of 5 in the UK. Many babies die following decisions between parents and the neonatal team; when a baby is critically unwell, with the support of healthcare professionals, parents may make the decision to stop active treatment and focus on ensuring their baby has a 'good' death. There is very little evidence to support the clinical application of neonatal palliative care and/or end-of-life care, resulting in variation in clinical provision between neonatal units. Developing core outcomes for neonatal palliative care would enable the development of measures of good practice and enhance our care of families. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set with associated tools for measuring neonatal palliative care. METHOD: This study has four phases: (1) identification of potential outcomes through systematic review and qualitative interviews with key stakeholders, including parents and healthcare professionals (2) an online Delphi process with key stakeholders to determine core outcomes (3) identification of outcome measures to support clinical application of outcome use (4) dissemination of the core outcome set for use across neonatal units in the UK. Key stakeholders include parents, healthcare professionals, and researchers with a background in neonatal palliative care. DISCUSSION: Developing a core outcome set will standardise minimum reported outcomes for future research and quality improvement projects designed to determine the effectiveness of interventions and clinical care during neonatal palliative and/or end-of-life care. The core outcome set will provide healthcare professionals working in neonatal palliative and/or end-of-life support with an increased and consistent evidence base to enhance practice in this area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been registered with the COMET initiative ( https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1470 ) and the systematic review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023451068).

Development of an international core outcome set for treatment trials in paediatric inguinal hernia: protocol for a three-phase study including a systematic review and Delphi survey.

INTRODUCTION: In children, open inguinal hernia repair has been the gold standard for treatment, but with recent technical advancements in laparoscopy, laparoscopic hernia repair is gaining popularity. Despite available results from comparative studies, there is still no consensus regarding the superiority of open versus laparoscopic treatment strategy. An important reason for lack of consensus is the large heterogeneity in the trials' reported outcomes and outcome definitions, which limits comparisons between studies and precludes conclusions regarding the superiority of treatment strategies. The development and implementation of a core outcome set (COS) is a solution for this heterogeneity in the selection, measurement and reporting of trial outcome measures across studies. Currently, there is no COS for the treatment of paediatric inguinal hernia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of this project is to reach international consensus on a minimal set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all future clinical trials investigating inguinal hernia repair in children. The development process comprises three phases. First, we identify outcome domains associated with paediatric inguinal hernia repair from a patient perspective and through a systematic review of the literature using EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases. Second, we conduct a three-step Delphi study to identify and prioritise 'core' outcomes for the eventual minimal set. In the third phase, an expert meeting is held to establish the final COS and develop implementation strategies with participants from all stakeholder groups: healthcare professionals, parents and patients' representatives. The final COS will be reported in accordance with the COS-Standards for Reporting statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The medical research ethics committee of the Amsterdam UMC confirmed that the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) does not apply to this study and that full approval by the committee is not required. Electronic informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Results will be presented in peer-reviewed academic journals and at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021281422.

Translation and cultural adaptation of the Greek integrated palliative care outcome scale (IPOS): challenges in a six-phase process.

AIM: To translate and culturally adapt IPOS to the Greek population. METHODS: A four phases- sequential study, which included verification of conceptual equivalence, double forward- backward translations and conceptual cognitive debriefing. Focus group interviews used 'think aloud' and 'verbal probing' techniques. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed using predefined categories. Purposely sampled from two oncology and palliative care units in Athens. RESULTS: The Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale was well accepted by both patients and health professionals. Overall comprehension and acceptability of the scale were good. The comprehension and judgement challenges identified in the pre-final version were successfully resolved in the cognitive interviewing phase. Five out of the seventeen translated items of the scale were modified after cognitive debriefing. Comprehension difficulties were identified with specific terms (e.g., energy/feeling depressed) and with some answer options. Severity of symptoms and not their impact was a common difficulty. A judgement challenge was reported in relation to 7-days recall and fluctuation of symptoms. Layout concerns in relation to length of questions were also stated. All questions were considered important and none as inappropriate. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated face and content validity and acceptability of the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale in the Greek context. Cognitive Interviewing proved valuable in refining concepts within the specific cultural context. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The IPOS outcome measure tool is now being used routinely in a palliative care service in Athens and is currently used to evaluate service outcomes.

A 13-item Health of the Nation Outcome Scale (HoNOS-13): validation by item response theory (IRT) in patients with substance use disorder.

BACKGROUND: The Health of the Nation Outcome Scale (HoNOS) is a widely used 12-item tool to assess mental health and social functioning. The French version has an added 13th item measuring adherence to psychotropic medication. The aim of the current study is to uncover the unknown pattern of the new item 13 and to compare the unidimensional and multidimensional fit of the new HoNOS-13 using Item Response Theory (IRT). This research question was studied among inpatients with substance use disorder (SUD). METHODS: Six hundred and nine valid questionnaires of HoNOS-13 were analyzed using unidimensional (one-factor) and multidimensional (two-factor) IRT modeling. RESULTS: The multidimensional model suggesting a first factor capturing psychiatric/impairment-related issues and a second factor reflecting social-related issues yielded better goodness-of-fit values compared to the unidimensional solution. This resulted in an improvement of all slope parameters which in turn translates to better discriminative power. Significant improvement in item location parameters were observed as well. The new item 13 had a good discriminative power (1.17) and covered a wide range of the latent trait (- 0.14 to 2.64). CONCLUSIONS: We were able to validate the 13-item questionnaire including medication compliance and suggest that the HoNOS-13 can be recommended as a clinical evaluation tool to assess the problems and treatment needs for inpatients with SUD. Interestingly, the majority of item response categories are endorsed by respondents who are below and above the average levels of HoNOS. This indicates that the scale is able to discriminate between participants both at the low and at the high ends of the latent trait continuum. More importantly, the new item 13 has a good discriminative power and covers a broad range of the latent trait below and above the mean. It therefore has the desired profile of a good item and is a useful measure for the assessment of mental health and social functioning. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT03551301. Registered: 11.06.2018. Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03551301 .