Study found increasing use of core outcome sets in Cochrane systematic reviews and identified facilitators and barriers.

OBJECTIVES: In 2019, only 7% of Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) cited a core outcome set (COS) in relation to choosing outcomes, even though a relevant COS existed but was not mentioned (or cited) for a further 29% of SRs. Our objectives for the current work were to (1) examine the extent to which authors are currently considering COS to inform outcome choice in Cochrane protocols and completed SRs, and (2) understand author facilitators and barriers to using COS. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We examined all completed Cochrane SRs published in the last 3 months of 2022 and all Cochrane protocols published in 2022 for the extent to which they: (a) cited a COS, (b) searched for COS, (c) used outcomes from existing COS, and (d) reported outcome inconsistency among included studies and/or noted the need for COS. One investigator extracted information; a second extractor verified all information, discussing discrepancies to achieve consensus. We then conducted an online survey of authors of the included SRs to assess awareness of COS and identify facilitators and barriers to using COS to inform outcome choice. RESULTS: Objective 1: We included 294 SRs of interventions (84 completed SRs and 210 published SR protocols), of which 13% cited specific COS and 5% did not cite but mentioned searching for COS. A median of 83% of core outcomes from cited COS (interquartile range [IQR] 57%-100%) were included in the corresponding SR. We identified a relevant COS for 39% of SRs that did not cite a COS. A median of 50% of core outcomes from noncited COS (IQR 35%-72%) were included in the corresponding SR. Objective 2: Authors of 236 (80%) of the 294 eligible SRs completed our survey. Seventy-seven percent of authors noted being aware of COS before the survey. Fifty-five percent of authors who did not cite COS but were aware of them reported searching for a COS. The most reported facilitators of using COS were author awareness of the existence of COS (59%), author positive perceptions of COS (52%), and recommendation in the Cochrane Handbook regarding COS use (48%). The most reported barriers related to matching of the scope of the COS and the SR: the COS target population was too narrow/broad relative to the SR population (29%) or the COS target intervention was too narrow/broad relative to the SR intervention (21%). Most authors (87%) mentioned that they would consider incorporating missing core outcomes in the SR/update. CONCLUSION: Since 2019, there is increasing consideration and awareness of COS when choosing outcomes for Cochrane SRs of interventions, but uptake remains low and can be improved further. Use of COS in SRs is important to improve outcome standardization, reduce research waste, and improve evidence syntheses of the relevant effects of interventions across health research.

In-depth qualitative interviews identified barriers and facilitators that influenced chief investigators' use of core outcome sets in randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate barriers and facilitators to core outcome set (COS) uptake in randomized controlled trials to inform the first steps in developing interventions to improve the uptake of COS. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Semi-structured qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of United Kingdom chief investigators were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed thematically. Where appropriate, barriers and facilitators were mapped to components of behavior informed by the COM-B model of behavior. RESULTS: Thirteen chief investigators were interviewed. Facilitators to uptake included: the behavior of investigators, for example, their awareness and understanding of COS; and the wider research system, for example, recommendations to use COS from funders and journals. Barriers to uptake included: the perceived characteristics of COS, for example, increasing patient burden and recommendations becoming outdated; and the COS development process, for example, not including all specialties who will use the COS. CONCLUSION: Based on the barriers and facilitators identified, recommendations to improve COS uptake include ensuring engagement with the research community who will use the COS, involving patients in the development of COS and ensuring COS remain up to date.

A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of our review was to bring together studies that had assessed the uptake of core outcome sets (COS) to explore the level of uptake across different COS and areas of health. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We examined the citations of 337 COS reports to identify studies that had assessed the uptake of a particular COS in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews (SRs). RESULTS: We identified 24 studies that had assessed uptake in RCTs and two studies that had assessed uptake in SRs. The studies covered a total of 17/337 (5%) COS. Uptake rates reported for RCTs varied from 0% of RCTs (gout) to 82% RCTs (rheumatoid arthritis) measuring the full COS. Studies that assessed uptake of individual core outcomes showed a wide variation in uptake between the outcomes. Suggested barriers to uptake included lack of validated measures, lack of patient and other key stakeholder involvement in COS development, and lack of awareness of the COS. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have been undertaken to assess the uptake of COS in RCTs and SRs. Further studies are needed to assess whether COS have been implemented across a wider range of disease categories and to explore the barriers and facilitators to COS uptake.

Assessing the impact of a research funder's recommendation to consider core outcome sets.

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets (COS) have the potential to reduce waste in research by improving the consistency of outcomes measured in trials of the same health condition. However, this reduction in waste will only be realised through the uptake of COS by clinical trialists. Without uptake, the continued development of COS that are not implemented may add to waste in research. Funders of clinical trials have the potential to have an impact on COS uptake by recommending their use to those applying for funding. The aim of our study was to assess the extent to which applicants followed the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme's recommendation to search for a COS to include in their clinical trial. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We examined the outcomes section and detailed project descriptions of all 95 researcher-led primary research applications submitted to the NIHR HTA between January 2012, when the recommendation to search for a COS was included in the guidance for applicants, and December 2015 for evidence that a search for a COS had taken place and rationale for outcome choice in the absence of COS. A survey of applicants was conducted to further explore their use of COS and choice of outcomes with a response rate of 49%. Nine out of 95 applicants (10%) stated in their application that they had searched the COMET (Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials) Initiative database for a COS and another nine referred to searching for a COS using another method, e.g. a review of the literature. Of the 77 (81%) applicants that did not mention COMET or COS in their application, eight stated in the survey that they had searched the COMET database and ten carried out a search using another method. Some applicants who did not search for a COS gave reasons for their choice of outcomes including taking advice from patients and the public and choosing outcomes used in previous trials. CONCLUSION: A funding body can have an impact on COS uptake by encouraging trialists to search for a COS. Funders could take further steps by putting processes in place to prompt applicants to be explicit about searching for COS in their application and notifying the funding board if a search has not taken place. The sources of information used by trialists to make decisions about outcomes in the absence of COS may suggest methods of dissemination for COS.

Acceptability of the Distress Thermometer and Problem List to community-based telephone cancer helpline operators, and to cancer patients and carers.

BACKGROUND: Cancer can be a distressing experience for cancer patients and carers, impacting on psychological, social, physical and spiritual functioning. However, health professionals often fail to detect distress in their patients due to time constraints and a lack of experience. Also, with the focus on the patient, carer needs are often overlooked. This study investigated the acceptability of brief distress screening with the Distress Thermometer (DT) and Problem List (PL) to operators of a community-based telephone helpline, as well as to cancer patients and carers calling the service. METHODS: Operators (n = 18) monitored usage of the DT and PL with callers (cancer patients/carers, >18 years, and English-speaking) from September-December 2006 (n = 666). The DT is a single item, 11-point scale to rate level of distress. The associated PL identifies the cause of distress. RESULTS: The DT and PL were used on 90% of eligible callers, most providing valid responses. Benefits included having an objective, structured and consistent means for distress screening and triage to supportive care services. Reported challenges included apparent inappropriateness of the tools due to the nature of the call or level of caller distress, the DT numeric scale, and the level of operator training. CONCLUSIONS: We observed positive outcomes to using the DT and PL, although operators reported some challenges. Overcoming these challenges may improve distress screening particularly by less experienced clinicians, and further development of the PL items and DT scale may assist with administration. The DT and PL allow clinicians to direct/prioritise interventions or referrals, although ongoing training and support is critical in distress screening.

Repeat participation in colorectal cancer screening utilizing fecal occult blood testing: a community-based project in a rural setting.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To investigate participation in a second round of colorectal cancer screening using a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) in an Australian rural community, and to assess the demographic characteristics and individual perspectives associated with repeat screening. METHODS: Potential participants from round 1 (50-74 years of age) were sent an intervention package and asked to return a completed FOBT (n = 3406). Doctors of participants testing positive referred to colonoscopy as appropriate. Following screening, 119 participants completed qualitative telephone interviews. Multivariable logistic regression models evaluated the association between round-2 participation and other variables. RESULTS: Round-2 participation was 34.7%; the strongest predictor was participation in round 1. Repeat participants were more likely to be female; inconsistent screeners were more likely to be younger (aged 50-59 years). The proportion of positive FOBT was 12.7%, that of colonoscopy compliance was 98.6%, and the positive predictive value for cancer or adenoma of advanced pathology was 23.9%. Reasons for participation included testing as a precautionary measure or having family history/friends with colorectal cancer; reasons for non-participation included apathy or doctors' advice against screening. CONCLUSION: Participation was relatively low and consistent across rounds. Unless suitable strategies are identified to overcome behavioral trends and/or to screen out ineligible participants, little change in overall participation rates can be expected across rounds.

Feasibility of brief psychological distress screening by a community-based telephone helpline for cancer patients and carers.

BACKGROUND: Up to one-third of people affected by cancer experience ongoing psychological distress and would benefit from screening followed by an appropriate level of psychological intervention. This rarely occurs in routine clinical practice due to barriers such as lack of time and experience. This study investigated the feasibility of community-based telephone helpline operators screening callers affected by cancer for their level of distress using a brief screening tool (Distress Thermometer), and triaging to the appropriate level of care using a tiered model. METHODS: Consecutive cancer patients and carers who contacted the helpline from September-December 2006 (n = 341) were invited to participate. Routine screening and triage was conducted by helpline operators at this time. Additional socio-demographic and psychosocial adjustment data were collected by telephone interview by research staff following the initial call. RESULTS: The Distress Thermometer had good overall accuracy in detecting general psychosocial morbidity (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale cut-off score >or= 15) for cancer patients (AUC = 0.73) and carers (AUC = 0.70). We found 73% of participants met the Distress Thermometer cut-off for distress caseness according to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (a score >or= 4), and optimal sensitivity (83%, 77%) and specificity (51%, 48%) were obtained with cut-offs of >or= 4 and >or= 6 in the patient and carer groups respectively. Distress was significantly associated with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores (total, as well as anxiety and depression subscales) and level of care in cancer patients, as well as with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety subscale for carers. There was a trend for more highly distressed callers to be triaged to more intensive care, with patients with distress scores >or= 4 more likely to receive extended or specialist care. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that it was feasible for community-based cancer helpline operators to screen callers for distress using a brief screening tool, the Distress Thermometer, and to triage callers to an appropriate level of care using a tiered model. The Distress Thermometer is a rapid and non-invasive alternative to longer psychometric instruments, and may provide part of the solution in ensuring distressed patients and carers affected by cancer are identified and supported appropriately.

The view from two sides: a qualitative study of community and medical perspectives on screening for colorectal cancer using FOBT.

BACKGROUND: Population-wide screening for people at average risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) by faecal occult blood test (FOBT) is under consideration in Australia. METHODS: Qualitative methods were used to examine the views of community members who did (n = 18) or did not (n = 12) participate in a pilot program of FOBT screening. In addition, views were obtained from general practitioners (GPs) and specialist gastroenterologists directly involved in the implementation of the program. Two focus group sessions were conducted with screening participants and interviews were conducted with nonparticipants, GPs and gastroenterologists. RESULTS: The findings suggest that CRC screening by FOBT distributed to households by mail was well accepted by the community and by the medical practitioners involved in its implementation. The trial had little negative effect on general practice. Both medical practitioners and consumers raised concerns about the efficacy of FOBT screening. Medical practitioners were also concerned about the potential burden mass screening could place on the public (government-funded) health care sector. CONCLUSIONS: It would seem that CRC screening using FOBT will not enjoy unqualified support from the community or from medical practitioners involved in the continuum of screening. Information about the objectives of screening programs, in general, and the efficacy of FOBT screening in particular, needs to be provided to the community to ensure informed individual choice.