A review of patient and carer participation and the use of qualitative research in the development of core outcome sets

被引:31
|
作者
Jones, Janet E. [1 ]
Jones, Laura L. [1 ]
Keeley, Thomas J. H. [2 ]
Calvert, Melanie J. [1 ]
Mathers, Jonathan [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Birmingham, Coll Med & Dent Sci, Inst Appl Hlth Res, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
[2] Parexel Int, Evergreen Bldg, London, England
来源
PLOS ONE | 2017年 / 12卷 / 03期
关键词
CLINICAL-TRIALS; CONSENSUS STATEMENT; HAND OSTEOARTHRITIS; HEALTH OUTCOMES; ATOPIC ECZEMA; DOMAINS; PERSPECTIVE; FIBROMYALGIA; CHILDREN; BENEFITS;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0172937
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Background To be meaningful, a core outcome set (COS) should be relevant to all stakeholders including patients and carers. This review aimed to explore the methods by which patients and carers have been included as participants in COS development exercises and, in particular, the use and reporting of qualitative methods. Methods In August 2015, a search of the Core Outcomes Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database was undertaken to identify papers involving patients and carers in COS develop-ment. Data were extracted to identify the data collection methods used in COS development, the number of health professionals, patients and carers participating in these, and the reported details of qualitative research undertaken. Results Fifty-nine papers reporting patient and carer participation were included in the review, ten of which reported using qualitative methods. Although patients and carers participated in out-come elicitation for inclusion in COS processes, health professionals tended to dominate the prioritisation exercises. Of the ten qualitative papers, only three were reported as a clear pre-designed part of a COS process. Qualitative data were collected using interviews, focus groups or a combination of these. None of the qualitative papers reported an underpinning methodological framework and details regarding data saturation, reflexivity and resource use associated with data collection were often poorly reported. Five papers reported difficulty in achieving a diverse sample of participants and two reported that a large and varied range of outcomes were often identified by participants making subsequent rating and rank-ing difficult. Conclusions Consideration of the best way to include patients and carers throughout the COS develop-ment process is needed. Additionally, further work is required to assess the potential role of qualitative methods in COS, to explore the knowledge produced by different qualitative data collection methods, and to evaluate the time and resources required to incorporate qualitative methods into COS development.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The need for consensus, consistency, and core outcome sets in perioperative research
    Blazeby, Jane M.
    Williamson, Paula R.
    Altman, Doug
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIA-JOURNAL CANADIEN D ANESTHESIE, 2016, 63 (02): : 133 - 137
  • [42] Getting it right: core outcome sets in quality improvement research
    Einerson, B. D.
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2018, 125 (12) : 1619 - 1619
  • [43] Core outcome sets: a barrier-free tool for research?
    Gordijn, S. J.
    Ganzevoort, W.
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2019, 126 (01) : 94 - 94
  • [44] Industry funding was associated with increased use of core outcome sets
    Kirkham, Jamie J.
    Bracken, Megan
    Hind, Lorna
    Pennington, Katie
    Clarke, Mike
    Williamson, Paula R.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2019, 115 : 90 - 97
  • [45] The standards of obstetrics and gynecology core outcome sets: A scoping review
    Shi, Jiyuan
    Gao, Ya
    Wu, Shuang
    Niu, MingMing
    Chen, Yamin
    Yan, Meili
    Song, Ziwei
    Feng, Hui
    Zhang, Junhua
    Tian, Jinhui
    INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE RESEARCH, 2022, 11 (01)
  • [46] Improvement was needed in the standards of development for cancer core outcome sets
    Gargon, Elizabeth
    Williamson, Paula R.
    Blazeby, Jane M.
    Kirkham, Jamie J.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2019, 112 : 36 - 44
  • [47] A qualitative interview study to streamline integration of patient participation in research
    Di Meo, Anna-Francesca Jessica
    Goekce, Feyza
    Pfeiffer, Lisa
    Teusen, Clara
    Gehrmann, Jan
    Jung-Sievers, Caroline
    Schneider, Antonius
    Gensichen, Jochen
    De Valerio, Karolina
    Pitschel-Walz, Gabriele
    GESUNDHEITSWESEN, 2025,
  • [48] Developing Core Outcome Sets (COS) and Core Outcome Measures Sets (COMS) in Cosmetic Gynecological Interventions: Protocol for a Development and Usability Study
    Doumouchtsis, Stergios K.
    Nama, Vivek
    Falconi, Gabriele
    Rada, Maria Patricia
    Manonai, Jittima
    Iancu, George
    Haddad, Jorge Milhem
    Betschart, Cornelia
    JMIR RESEARCH PROTOCOLS, 2021, 10 (11):
  • [49] Patient Participation in Research and Development in Allergy and Immunology
    Bukstein, Don
    Winders, Tonya
    JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 2020, 145 (02) : AB232 - AB232
  • [50] Patient Participation in Patient Reported Outcome Instrument Development in Systemic Sclerosis
    Pauling, John
    Frech, Tracy M.
    Domsic, Robyn T.
    Hudson, Marie
    ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATOLOGY, 2016, 68