Ensuring young voices are heard in core outcome set development: international workshops with 70 children and young people.

Plain english summaryResearchers test treatments to ensure these work and are safe. They do this by studying the effects that treatments have on patients by measuring outcomes, such as pain and quality of life. Often research teams measure different outcomes even though each team is studying the same condition. This makes it hard to compare the findings from different studies and it can reduce the accuracy of the treatment advice available to patients. Increasingly, researchers are tackling this problem by developing 'core outcome sets'. These are lists of outcomes that all researchers working on a given condition should measure in their studies. It is important that patients have a voice in the development of core outcome sets and children and young people are no exception. But their voices have rarely been heard when core outcome sets are developed. Researchers are trying to address this problem and make sure that core outcome sets are developed in ways that are suitable for children and young people. As a first step, we held two international workshops with children and young people to listen to their views. They emphasised the importance of motivating young people to participate in developing core outcome sets, making them feel valued, and making the development process more interactive, enjoyable and convenient. We hope this commentary will encourage researchers to include children and young people when developing core outcome sets and to adapt their methods so these are suitable for young participants. Future research is important to examine whether these adaptations are effective.AbstractBackground Different research teams looking at treatments for the same condition often select and measure inconsistent treatment outcomes. This makes it difficult to synthesise the results of different studies, leads to selective outcome reporting and impairs the quality of evidence about treatments. 'Core outcome sets' (COS) can help to address these problems. A COS is an agreed, minimum list of outcomes that researchers are encouraged to consistently measure and report in their studies. Including children and young people (CYP) as participants in the development of COS for paediatric conditions ensures that clinically meaningful outcomes are measured and reported. However, few published COS have included CYP as participants. COS developers have described difficulties in recruiting and retaining CYP and there is a lack of guidance on optimising COS methods for them. We aimed to explore CYP's views on the methods used to develop COS and identify ways to optimise these methods.Main body This commentary summarises discussions during two workshops with approximately 70 CYP (aged 10-18 years old) at the International Children's Advisory Network Research and Advocacy Summit, 2018. Delegates described what might motivate them to participate in a COS study, including feeling valued, understanding the need for COS and the importance of input from CYP in their development, and financial and other incentives (e.g. certificates of participation). For Delphi surveys, delegates suggested that lists of outcomes should be as brief as possible, and that scoring and feedback methods should be simplified. For consensus meetings, delegates advised preparing CYP in advance, supporting them during meetings (e.g. via mentors) and favoured arrangements whereby CYP could meet separately from parents and other stakeholders. Overall, they wanted COS methods that were convenient, enjoyable and engaging.Conclusion This commentary points to the limitations of the methods currently used to develop COS with CYP. It also points to ways to motivate CYP to participate in COS studies and to enhancements of methods to make participation more engaging for CYP. Pending much needed research on COS methods for CYP, the perspectives offered in the workshops should help teams developing COS in paediatrics and child health

Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting The COS-STAR Statement

Background Core outcome sets (COS) can enhance the relevance of research by ensuring that outcomes of importance to health service users and other people making choices about health care in a particular topic area are measured routinely. Over 200 COS to date have been developed, but the clarity of these reports is suboptimal. COS studies will not achieve their goal if reports of COS are not complete and transparent. Methods and Findings In recognition of these issues, an international group that included experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives developed the Core Outcome Set–STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) Statement as a reporting guideline for COS studies. The developmental process consisted of an initial reporting item generation stage and a two-round Delphi survey involving nearly 200 participants representing key stakeholder groups, followed by a consensus meeting. The COS-STAR Statement consists of a checklist of 18 items considered essential for transparent and complete reporting in all COS studies. The checklist items focus on the introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of a manuscript describing the development of a particular COS. A limitation of the COS-STAR Statement is that it was developed without representative views of low- and middle-income countries. COS have equal relevance to studies conducted in these areas, and, subsequently, this guideline may need to evolve over time to encompass any additional challenges from developing COS in these areas. Conclusions With many ongoing COS studies underway, the COS-STAR Statement should be a helpful resource to improve the reporting of COS studies for the benefit of all COS users

Real-World Evaluation of the Feasibility, Acceptability and Safety of a Remote, Self-Management Parkinson’s Disease Care Pathway: A Healthcare Improvement Initiative

Background: There is significant unmet need for effective and efficiently delivered care for people with Parkinson’s disease (PwP). We undertook a service improvement initiative to co-develop and implement a new care pathway, Home Based Care (HBC), based on supported self-management, remote monitoring and the ability to trigger a healthcare contact when needed. Objective: To evaluate feasibility, acceptability and safety of Home Based Care. Methods: We evaluated data from the first 100 patients on HBC for 6 months. Patient monitoring, performed at baseline and 6-monthly, comprised motor (MDS-UPDRS II and accelerometer), non-motor (NMSQ, PDSS-2, HADS) and quality of life (PDQ) measures. Care quality was audited against Parkinson’s UK national audit standards. Process measures captured feasibility. Acceptability was assessed using a mixed-methods approach comprising questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Results: Between October 2019 and January 2021, 108 PwP were enrolled onto HBC, with data from 100 being available at 6 months. Over 90% of all questionnaires were returned, 97% were complete or had < 3 missing items. Reporting and communications occurred within agreed timeframes. Compared with baseline, after 6m on HBC, PD symptoms were stable; more PwP felt listened to (90% vs. 79%) and able to seek help (79% vs. 68%). HBC met 93% of national audit criteria. Key themes from the interviews included autonomy and empowerment. Conclusions: We have demonstrated acceptability, feasibility and safety of our novel remotely delivered Parkinson’s care pathway. Ensuring scalability will widen its reach and realize its benefits for underserved communities, enabling formal comparisons with standard care and cost-effectiveness evaluation

Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol items: the COS-STAP statement

Background: Several hundred core outcome set (COS) projects have been systematically identified to date which, if adopted, ensure that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. The uptake of a COS by COS users will depend in part on the transparency and robustness of the methods used in the COS development study, which would be increased by the use of a standardised protocol. This article describes the development of the COS-STAP (Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items) Statement for the content of a COS development study protocol. Methods: The COS-STAP Statement was developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network’s methodological framework for guideline development. This included an initial item generation stage, a two-round Delphi survey involving more than 150 participants representing three stakeholder groups (COS developers, journal editors and patient and public involvement researchers interested in COS development), followed by a consensus meeting with eight voting participants. Results: The COS-STAP Statement consists of a checklist of 13 items considered essential documentation in a protocol, outlining the scope of the COS, stakeholder involvement, COS development plans and consensus processes. Conclusions: Journal editors and peer reviewers can use the guidance to assess the completeness of a COS development study protocol submitted for publication. By providing guidance for key content, the COS-STAP Statement will enhance the drafting of high-quality protocols and determine how the COS development study will be carried out

The OMERACT-OARSI Core Domain Set for Measurement in Clinical Trials of Hip and/or Knee Osteoarthritis

Objective: To update the 1997 OMERACT-OARSI (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International) core domain set for clinical trials in hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: An initial review of the COMET database of core outcome sets (COS) was undertaken to identify all domains reported in previous COS including individuals with hip and/or knee OA. These were presented during 5 patient and health professionals/researcher meetings in 3 continents (Europe, Australasia, North America). A 3-round international Delphi survey was then undertaken among patients, healthcare professionals, researchers, and industry representatives to gain consensus on key domains to be included in a core domain set for hip and/or knee OA. Findings were presented and discussed in small groups at OMERACT 2018, where consensus was obtained in the final plenary. Results: Four previous COS were identified. Using these, and the patient and health professionals/researcher meetings, 50 potential domains formed the Delphi survey. There were 426 individuals from 25 different countries who contributed to the Delphi exercise. OMERACT 2018 delegates (n = 129) voted on candidate domains. Six domains gained agreement as mandatory to be measured and reported in all hip and/or knee OA clinical trials: pain, physical function, quality of life, and patient’s global assessment of the target joint, in addition to the mandated core domain of adverse events including mortality. Joint structure was agreed as mandatory in specific circumstances, i.e., depending on the intervention. Conclusion: The updated core domain set for hip and/or knee OA has been agreed upon. Work will commence to determine which outcome measurement instrument should be recommended to cover each core domain

Improving recruitment to a study of telehealth management for long-term conditions in primary care: two embedded, randomised controlled trials of optimised patient information materials

Background: Patient understanding of study information is fundamental to gaining informed consent to take part in a randomised controlled trial. In order to meet the requirements of research ethics committees, patient information materials can be long and need to communicate complex messages. There is concern that standard approaches to providing patient information may deter potential participants from taking part in trials. The Systematic Techniques for Assisting Recruitment to Trials (MRC-START) research programme aims to test interventions to improve trial recruitment. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect on recruitment of optimised patient information materials (with improved readability and ease of comprehension) compared with standard materials. The study was embedded within two primary care trials involving patients with long-term conditions. Methods: The Healthlines Study involves two linked trials evaluating a telehealth intervention in patients with depression (Healthlines Depression) or raised cardiovascular disease risk (Healthlines CVD). We conducted two trials of a recruitment intervention, embedded within the Healthlines host trials. Patients identified as potentially eligible in each of the Healthlines trials were randomised to receive either the original patient information materials or optimised versions of these materials. Primary outcomes were the proportion of participants randomised (Healthlines Depression) and the proportion expressing interest in taking part (Healthlines CVD). Results: In Healthlines Depression (n = 1364), 6.3 % of patients receiving the optimised patient information materials were randomised into the study compared to 4.0 % in those receiving standard materials (OR = 1.63, 95 % CI = 1.00 to 2.67). In Healthlines CVD (n = 671) 24.0 % of those receiving optimised patient information materials responded positively to the invitation to participate, compared to 21.9 % in those receiving standard materials (OR = 1.12, 95 % CI = 0.78 to 1.61). Conclusions: Evidence from these two embedded trials suggests limited benefits of optimised patient information materials on recruitment rates, which may only be apparent in some patient populations, with no effects on other outcomes. Further embedded trials are needed to provide a more precise estimate of effect, and to explore further how effects vary by trial context, intervention, and patient population

A qualitative study of Telehealth patient information leaflets (TILs) : are we giving patients enough information?

BACKGROUND: The provision of patient information leaflets regarding telehealth has been perceived by potential consumers as a strategy to promote awareness and adoption of telehealth services. However, such leaflets need to be designed carefully if adoption and awareness among potential users is to be promoted. Therefore, the aims of this study were: first, to see how telehealth was portrayed in some of the existing telehealth leaflets (THLs). Second, to explore patients' perceptions of the existing THLs and their engagement with the concept and how THLs can be optimised. METHODS: A two-step approach was employed to address the aims of this study. The first phase involved the use of discourse analysis to compare 12 electronically and publically available THLs, with the existing THL guidance "Involve Yorkshire and Humber". The second phase involved conducting 14 semi-structured interviews with potential telehealth users/patients to gauge their perception and engagement with the concept, using the two leaflets that were mostly matching with the guidance used. Six interviews were audio-recorded and eight had detailed jotted notes. The interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed to identify key themes. RESULTS: The discourse analysis showed certain gaps and variations within the screened leaflets when addressing the following aspects: cost of the telehealth service, confidentiality, patients' choices in addition to equipment use and technical support. Analysis of the interviews revealed patients' need for having clear and sufficient information about the telehealth service within the THLs; in addition to, patients' preference for the use of simpler terminologies for telehealth description and the provision of clear simple texts with pictorial presentations. The interviews also revealed certain limitations against adoption of telehealth by the participants, such as: lack of privacy and confidentiality of information, fear of technology breakdown and equipment failure, loss of face-to-face contact with healthcare professionals and being too dependent on the telehealth service. CONCLUSION: The current study showed a great variation among the screened THLs and highlighted certain gaps within the content and presentation of these leaflets. However, the study also highlighted certain key issues to be considered when designing THLs in the future to enhance telehealth uptake and use by patients

Patterns of care and survival for adolescents and young adults with acute leukaemia – a population-based study

We report a population-based study of patterns of care and survival for people with acute leukaemia diagnosed at age 15–29 years during 1984–94 in regions of England and Wales covered by specialist leukaemia registries. There were 879 patients: 417 with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) and 462 with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). For ALL, actuarial survival rates were 43% at 5 years after diagnosis and 37% at 10 years. Survival improved significantly between 1984–88 and 1989–94 for those aged 15–19 at diagnosis. Patients entered in national clinical trials and those not entered had similar survival rates. Survival rates were similar at teaching and non-teaching hospitals and at hospitals treating different numbers of study patients per year. For AML, survival rates were 42% at 5 years after diagnosis and 39% at 10 years. Survival improved significantly between 1984–88 and 1989–94. Patients entered in the Medical Research Council AML10 trial had a higher survival rate than those who were in the earlier AML9 trial. Survival did not vary with category of hospital. We conclude that survival has improved for adolescents and young adults with acute leukaemia but that there is at present no evidence that centralized treatment results in a survival benefit for patients in this age group. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig