Web-based discussion forums reveal the person-centered relevance and importance of tinnitus.

An increasing number of health researchers are recognizing the benefits of crowdsourcing. Web-based discussion forums are well suited for collecting qualitative research data with tinnitus participants and forum posts can be evaluated using thematic analysis. The present study reports an innovative use of such qualitative data contributed by a group of 148 people with tinnitus and tinnitus professionals through the crowdsourcing platform Tinnitus Talk. While the primary research question was focused on defining symptom concepts, discussions were broad-ranging and extended far beyond this topic. Thematic analysis of the discussion conducted by two analysts identified three novel emerging themes and these were not pre-planned according to the moderator's script. These were (i) the lived experience of tinnitus, (ii) perspectives on interventions for tinnitus, and (iii) the experience of participating in a web discussion forum. These unexpected themes contribute to a richer and more in-depth understanding of tinnitus seen through the eyes of those who experience it on a daily basis. Findings are important since spontaneous themes presumably reflect issues that are of personal relevance and importance to the participants. They therefore give insights into future research directions and have implications for patient-centered counseling strategies that could be effective in clinic.

Defining Symptom Concepts in Chronic Subjective Tinnitus: Web-Based Discussion Forum Study.

BACKGROUND: A minimum standard based upon consensus decision making recommends a core set of tinnitus-specific health complaints (outcome domains) that should be assessed and reported in all clinical trials as this enables comparisons to be made across studies as well as data pooling for meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to further clarify how the outcome domain concepts should be defined for 5 of the core set: tinnitus intrusiveness, sense of control, acceptance of tinnitus, concentration, and ability to ignore. This step requires a clear and fully elaborated definition for each outcome domain, moving from an abstract or a vague concept to an operationalized and measurable health-related construct, so that a suitable measurement instrument can then be identified. METHODS: A series of 5 focus group-style semistructured discussions were conducted via a Web-based discussion forum, each open for 2 weeks and ending with a vote. The participants included 148 tinnitus experts who completed a preceding e-Delphi survey that had generated the original set of minimum standards. The participants were health care users living with tinnitus, health care professionals, clinical researchers, commercial representatives, and funders. RESULTS: The Web discussions led to a revision of all 5 original plain language definitions that had been used in the preceding e-Delphi survey. Each revised definition was voted by 8 to 53 participants and reached the prespecified threshold of 70% consensus for all except tinnitus intrusiveness. Although a single definition was not agreed upon for tinnitus intrusiveness, the majority of participants shared the view that the concept should be sufficiently broad to encapsulate a range of subdomains. The examples included tinnitus awareness, unpleasantness, and impact on different aspects of everyday life. Thematic analysis of the 5 Web-based discussion threads gave important insights into expert interpretations of each core outcome domain, generating an operationalized and measurable health construct in each case. CONCLUSIONS: The qualitative data gathered during the Web-based discussion forum provided an important in-depth understanding of the health concepts that had raised a debate during earlier face-to-face meetings. The descriptive summaries and definitions provide sufficient operationalization of those concepts to proceed to the second stage of core outcome set development that is to identify and evaluate suitable measurement instruments. This study supports the use of Web-based peer discussion forums in defining health concepts.

One Size Does Not Fit All: Developing Common Standards for Outcomes in Early-Phase Clinical Trials of Sound-, Psychology-, and Pharmacology-Based Interventions for Chronic Subjective Tinnitus in Adults.

Good practice in clinical trials advocates common standards for assessing and reporting condition-specific complaints ("outcome domains"). For tinnitus, there is no common standard. The Core Outcome Measures in Tinnitus International Delphi (COMiT'ID) study created recommendations that are relevant to the most common intervention approaches for chronic subjective tinnitus in adults using consensus methods. Here, the objectives were to examine why it is important to tailor outcome domain selection to the tinnitus intervention that is being evaluated in the clinical trial and to demonstrate that the COMiT'ID recommendations are robust. The COMiT'ID study used an online three-round Delphi method with three separate surveys for sound-, psychology-, and pharmacology-based interventions. Survey data were analyzed to assess quality and confidence in the consensus achieved across surveys and stakeholder groups and between survey rounds. Results found participants were highly discriminatory in their decision-making. Of the 34 outcome domains reaching the prespecified consensus definition in the final round, 17 (50%) were unique to one intervention, while only 12 (35%) were common to all three. Robustness was demonstrated by an acceptable level of agreement across and within stakeholder groups, across survey rounds, across medical specialties (for the health-care practitioners), and across health-care users with varying tinnitus duration. There were few dissenting voices, and results showed no attrition bias. In conclusion, there is compelling evidence that one set of outcomes does not fit all therapeutic aims. Our analyses evidence robust decisions by the electronic Delphi process, leading to recommendations for three unique intervention-specific outcome domain sets. This provides an important starting point for standardization.

The COMiT'ID Study: Developing Core Outcome Domains Sets for Clinical Trials of Sound-, Psychology-, and Pharmacology-Based Interventions for Chronic Subjective Tinnitus in Adults.

Subjective tinnitus is a chronic heterogeneous condition that is typically managed using intervention approaches based on sound devices, psychologically informed therapies, or pharmaceutical products. For clinical trials, there are currently no common standards for assessing or reporting intervention efficacy. This article reports on the first of two steps to establish a common standard, which identifies what specific tinnitus-related complaints ("outcome domains") are critical and important to assess in all clinical trials to determine whether an intervention has worked. Using purposive sampling, 719 international health-care users with tinnitus, health-care professionals, clinical researchers, commercial representatives, and funders were recruited. Eligibility was primarily determined by experience of one of the three interventions of interest. Following recommended procedures for gaining consensus, three intervention-specific, three-round, Delphi surveys were delivered online. Each Delphi survey was followed by an in-person consensus meeting. Viewpoints and votes involved all stakeholder groups, with approximately a 1:1 ratio of health-care users to professionals. "Tinnitus intrusiveness" was voted in for all three interventions. For sound-based interventions, the minimum set included "ability to ignore," "concentration," "quality of sleep," and "sense of control." For psychology-based interventions, the minimum set included "acceptance of tinnitus," "mood," "negative thoughts and beliefs," and "sense of control." For pharmacology-based interventions, "tinnitus loudness" was the only additional core outcome domain. The second step will next identify how those outcome domains should best be measured. The uptake of these intervention-specific standards in clinical trials will improve research quality, enhance clinical decision-making, and facilitate meta-analysis in systematic reviews.