Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations

Background The use of core outcome sets (COS) ensures that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. Several hundred COS projects have been systematically identified to date, but there has been no formal quality assessment of these studies. The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) project aimed to identify minimum standards for the design of a COS study agreed upon by an international group, while other specific guidance exists for the final reporting of COS development studies (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting [COS-STAR]). Methods and findings An international group of experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives produced the COS-STAD recommendations to help improve the quality of COS development and support the assessment of whether a COS had been developed using a reasonable approach. An open survey of experts generated an initial list of items, which was refined by a 2-round Delphi survey involving nearly 250 participants representing key stakeholder groups. Participants assigned importance ratings for each item using a 1–9 scale. Consensus that an item should be included in the set of minimum standards was defined as at least 70% of the voting participants from each stakeholder group providing a score between 7 and 9. The Delphi survey was followed by a consensus discussion with the study management group representing multiple stakeholder groups. COS-STAD contains 11 minimum standards that are the minimum design recommendations for all COS development projects. The recommendations focus on 3 key domains: the scope, the stakeholders, and the consensus process. Conclusions The COS-STAD project has established 11 minimum standards to be followed by COS developers when planning their projects and by users when deciding whether a COS has been developed using reasonable methods

Parodie et carnavalisation : l’exemple de Hubert Aquin

One of the defining features of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) is the emphasis on reporting outcomes that are meaningful to patients. Accelerating progress toward this objective could be achieved through increased development and uptake of core outcome sets (COS), which are intended to represent a standardized minimum set of outcomes that should bemeasured and reported in all clinical trials in a specific condition. The level of activity around COS has increased significantly over recent years, however there are many important clinical conditions for which high quality COS havenot been developed. We believe that meaningful progress toward the goals behind the significant investments in PCOR will depend on sustained attention to the challenges of COS development and uptake

Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices

Background Internationally, many health care interventions were diffused prior to the standard use of assessments of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Disinvestment from ineffective or inappropriately applied practices is a growing priority for health care systems for reasons of improved quality of care and sustainability of resource allocation. In this paper we examine key challenges for disinvestment from these interventions and explore potential policy-related avenues to advance a disinvestment agenda. Results We examine five key challenges in the area of policy driven disinvestment: 1) lack of resources to support disinvestment policy mechanisms; 2) lack of reliable administrative mechanisms to identify and prioritise technologies and/or practices with uncertain clinical and cost-effectiveness; 3) political, clinical and social challenges to removing an established technology or practice; 4) lack of published studies with evidence demonstrating that existing technologies/practices provide little or no benefit (highlighting complexity of design) and; 5) inadequate resources to support a research agenda to advance disinvestment methods. Partnerships are required to involve government, professional colleges and relevant stakeholder groups to put disinvestment on the agenda. Such partnerships could foster awareness raising, collaboration and improved health outcome data generation and reporting. Dedicated funds and distinct processes could be established within the Medical Services Advisory Committee and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to, a) identify technologies and practices for which there is relative uncertainty that could be the basis for disinvestment analysis, and b) conduct disinvestment assessments of selected item(s) to address existing practices in an analogous manner to the current focus on new and emerging technology. Finally, dedicated funding and cross-disciplinary collaboration is necessary to build health services and policy research capacity, with a focus on advancing disinvestment research methodologies and decision support tools. Conclusion The potential over-utilisation of less than effective clinical practices and the potential under-utilisation of effective clinical practices not only result in less than optimal care but also fragmented, inefficient and unsustainable resource allocation. Systematic policy approaches to disinvestment will improve equity, efficiency, quality and safety of care, as well as sustainability of resource allocation.Adam G Elshaug, Janet E Hiller, Sean R Tunis and John R Mos

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

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

Barriers to the provision of smoking cessation assistance:A qualitative study among Romanian family physicians

BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation is the most effective intervention to prevent and slow down the progression of several respiratory and other diseases and improve patient outcomes. Romania has legislation and a national tobacco control programme in line with the World Health Organization Framework for Tobacco Control. However, few smokers are advised to quit by their family physicians (FPs). AIM: To identify and explore the perceived barriers that prevent Romanian FPs from engaging in smoking cessation with patients. METHODS: A qualitative study was undertaken. A total of 41 FPs were recruited purposively from Bucharest and rural areas within 600 km of the city. Ten FPs took part in a focus group and 31 participated in semistructured interviews. Analysis was descriptive, inductive and themed, according to the barriers experienced. RESULTS: Five main barriers were identified: limited perceived role for FPs; lack of time during consultations; past experience and presence of disincentives; patients' inability to afford medication; and lack of training in smoking cessation skills. Overarching these specific barriers were key themes of a medical and societal hierarchy, which undermined the FP role, stretched resources and constrained care. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the barriers described by the Romanian FPs reflected universally recognised challenges to the provision of smoking cessation advice. The context of a relatively hierarchical health-care system and limitations of time and resources exacerbated many of the problems and created new barriers that will need to be addressed if Romania is to achieve the aims of its National Programme Against Tobacco Consumption

Increased variability in ApcMin/+ intestinal tissue can be measured with microultrasound

Altered tissue structure is a feature of many disease states and is usually measured by microscopic methods, limiting analysis to small areas. Means to rapidly and quantitatively measure the structure and organisation of large tissue areas would represent a major advance not just for research but also in the clinic. Here, changes in tissue organisation that result from heterozygosity in Apc, a precancerous situation, are comprehensively measured using microultrasound and three-dimensional high-resolution microscopy. Despite its normal appearance in conventionally examined cross-sections, both approaches revealed a significant increase in the variability of tissue organisation in Apc heterozygous tissue. These changes preceded the formation of aberrant crypt foci or adenoma. Measuring these premalignant changes using microultrasound provides a potential means to detect microscopically abnormal regions in large tissue samples, independent of visual examination or biopsies. Not only does this provide a powerful tool for studying tissue structure in experimental settings, the ability to detect and monitor tissue changes by microultrasound could be developed into a powerful adjunct to screening endoscopy in the clinic

Deficiencies in the Quality of Diabetes Care: Comparing Specialist with Generalist Care Misses the Point

The quality of diabetes care delivered to patients falls below the expectations of practice guidelines and clinical trial evidence. Studies in many jurisdictions with varying health care systems have shown that recommended processes of care occur less often than they should; hence, outcomes of care are inadequate. Many studies comparing care between specialists and generalists have found that specialists are more likely to implement processes of care. However, this provides little insight into improving quality of care, as the difference between specialists and generalists in these studies is small compared to the overall deficiency in quality. Therefore, future research should instead focus on ways to implement high quality care, regardless of specialty. To date, few methodologically rigorous studies have uncovered interventions that can improve quality of care. The development of such interventions to help all physicians implement better quality care could greatly benefit people with diabetes