Secondary analysis of a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership to facilitate knowledge translation in degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM): insights from AO Spine RECODE-DCM.

OBJECTIVES: To explore whether a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership could provide insights on knowledge translation within the field of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process for DCM. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: DCM stake holders, including spinal surgeons, people with myelopathy and other healthcare professionals, were surveyed internationally. Research suggestions submitted by stakeholders but considered answered were identified. Sampling characteristics of respondents were compared with the overall cohort to identify subgroups underserved by current knowledge translation. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 423 individuals from 68 different countries. A total of 22% of participants submitted research suggestions that were considered 'answered'. There was a significant difference between responses from different stakeholder groups (p<0.005). Spinal surgeons were the group which was most likely to submit an 'answered' research question. Respondents from South America were also most likely to submit 'answered' questions, when compared with other regions. However, there was no significant difference between responses from different stakeholder regions (p=0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge translation challenges exist within DCM. This practical approach to measuring knowledge translation may offer a more responsive assessment to guide interventions, complementing existing metrics.

Lived experience-centred word clouds may improve research uncertainty gathering in priority setting partnerships.

INTRODUCTION: AO Spine RECODE-DCM was a multi-stakeholder priority setting partnership (PSP) to define the top ten research priorities for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Priorities were generated and iteratively refined using a series of surveys administered to surgeons, other healthcare professionals (oHCP) and people with DCM (PwDCM). The aim of this work was to utilise word clouds to enable the perspectives of people with the condition to be heard earlier in the PSP process than is traditionally the case. The objective was to evaluate the added value of word clouds in the process of defining research uncertainties in National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnerships. METHODS: Patient-generated word clouds were created for the four survey subsections of the AO Spine RECODE-DCM PSP: diagnosis, treatment, long-term management and other issues. These were then evaluated as a nested methodological study. Word-clouds were created and iteratively refined by an online support group of people with DCM, before being curated by the RECODE-DCM management committee and expert healthcare professional representatives. The final word clouds were embedded within the surveys administered at random to 50% of participants. DCM research uncertainties suggested by participants were compared pre- and post-word cloud presentation. RESULTS: A total of 215 (50.9%) participants were randomised to the word cloud stream, including 118 (55%) spinal surgeons, 52 (24%) PwDCM and 45 (21%) oHCP. Participants submitted 434 additional uncertainties after word cloud review: word count was lower and more uniform across each survey subsections compared to pre-word cloud uncertainties. Twenty-three (32%) of the final 74 PSP summary questions did not have a post-word cloud contribution and no summary question was formed exclusively on post-word cloud uncertainties. There were differences in mapping of pre- and post-word cloud uncertainties to summary questions, with greater mapping of post-word cloud uncertainties to the number 1 research question priority: raising awareness. Five of the final summary questions were more likely to map to the research uncertainties suggested by participants after having reviewed the word clouds. CONCLUSIONS: Word clouds may increase the perspective of underrepresented stakeholders in the research question gathering stage of priority setting partnerships. This may help steer the process towards research questions that are of highest priority for people with the condition.

Degenerative cervical myelopathy education in UK medical schools: a national cross-sectional survey of medical students.

INTRODUCTION: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common and progressive neurological condition caused by injury of the cervical spinal cord by degenerative spinal pathology. Delayed diagnosis leading to avoidable and irreversible disability is a major current problem limiting patient outcomes. Lack of sufficient representation of DCM in undergraduate and postgraduate medical curricula may contribute to poor recognition of DCM by non-specialist doctors. The objective of this study was to assess the DCM teaching provision in UK medical schools and the DCM knowledge of UK medical students. METHODS: UK medical students completed a web-based survey distributed nationally through university social media pages, university email bulletins and the national student network of Myelopathy.org. The survey comprised a 19-item questionnaire capturing data on student demographics, myelopathy teaching and myelopathy knowledge. Advertisements were repeated monthly over a 12-month recruitment period and participation was incentivised by entry into an Amazon voucher prize draw. Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Psychology Research Ethics Committee, University of Cambridge (PRE.2018.099). RESULTS: A total of 751 medical students from 32 British medical schools completed the survey. Medical students from all year groups participated. Most students (520; 72%) had not received any medical school teaching about DCM. When students had received DCM teaching, the duration of teaching was minimal (75% < 1 h). A total of 350 students (47%) reported conducting private study on DCM. Modal student self-rating of their own knowledge of DCM was 'terrible' (356; 47%). There was no correlation between a student's subjective rating of their knowledge and their answers to objective questions. A total of 723 (96%) of students expressed interest in learning more about DCM, with lectures the preferred format. CONCLUSIONS: DCM appears to be a neglected condition in medical education which has implications for clinical practice. However, student enthusiasm to undertake private study suggests future teaching interventions will be well-received. Future work is necessary to characterise the format of DCM teaching that is most effective and to subsequently measure how educational interventions translate into clinical benefits.

We Choose to Call it 'Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy': Findings of AO Spine RECODE-DCM, an International and Multi-Stakeholder Partnership to Agree a Standard Unifying Term and Definition for a Disease.

STUDY DESIGN: Modified DELPHI Consensus Process. OBJECTIVE: To agree a single unifying term and definition. Globally, cervical myelopathy caused by degenerative changes to the spine is known by over 11 different names. This inconsistency contributes to many clinical and research challenges, including a lack of awareness. METHOD: AO Spine RECODE-DCM (Research objectives and Common Data Elements Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy). To determine the index term, a longlist of candidate terms and their rationale, was created using a literature review and interviews. This was shared with the community, to select their preferred terms (248 members (58%) including 149 (60%) surgeons, 45 (18%) other healthcare professionals and 54 (22%) People with DCM or their supporters) and finalized using a consensus meeting. To determine a definition, a medical definition framework was created using inductive thematic analysis of selected International Classification of Disease definitions. Separately, stakeholders submitted their suggested definition which also underwent inductive thematic analysis (317 members (76%), 190 (59%) surgeons, 62 (20%) other healthcare professionals and 72 (23%) persons living with DCM or their supporters). Using this definition framework, a working definition was created based on submitted content, and finalized using consensus meetings. RESULTS: Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy was selected as the unifying term, defined in short, as a progressive spinal cord injury caused by narrowing of the cervical spinal canal. CONCLUSION: A consistent term and definition can support education and research initiatives. This was selected using a structured and iterative methodology, which may serve as an exemplar for others in the future.

Development of a core measurement set for research in degenerative cervical myelopathy: a study protocol (AO Spine RECODE-DCM CMS).

INTRODUCTION: Progress in degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is hindered by inconsistent measurement and reporting. This impedes data aggregation and outcome comparison across studies. This limitation can be reversed by developing a core measurement set (CMS) for DCM research. Previously, the AO Spine Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for DCM (AO Spine RECODE-DCM) defined 'what' should be measured in DCM: the next step of this initiative is to determine 'how' to measure these features. This protocol outlines the steps necessary for the development of a CMS for DCM research and audit. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CMS will be developed in accordance with the guidance developed by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials and the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments. The process involves five phases. In phase 1, the steering committee agreed on the constructs to be measured by sourcing consensus definitions from patients, professionals and the literature. In phases 2 and 3, systematic reviews were conducted to identify tools for each construct and aggregate their evidence. Constructs with and without tools were identified, and scoping reviews were conducted for constructs without tools. Evidence on measurement properties, as well as on timing of assessments, are currently being aggregated. These will be presented in phase 4: a consensus meeting where a multi-disciplinary panel of experts will select the instruments that will form the CMS. Following selection, guidance on the implementation of the CMS will be developed and disseminated (phase 5). A preliminary CMS review scheduled at 4 years from release. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Cambridge (HBREC2019.14). Dissemination strategies will include peer-reviewed scientific publications; conference presentations; podcasts; the identification of AO Spine RECODE-DCM ambassadors; and engagement with relevant journals, funders and the DCM community.

Clinical outcome measures and their evidence base in degenerative cervical myelopathy: a systematic review to inform a core measurement set (AO Spine RECODE-DCM).

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the measurement properties of outcome measures currently used in the assessment of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) for clinical research. DESIGN: Systematic review DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through 4 August 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Primary clinical research published in English and whose primary purpose was to evaluate the measurement properties or clinically important differences of instruments used in DCM. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Psychometric properties and clinically important differences were both extracted from each study, assessed for risk of bias and presented in accordance with the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-nine outcome instruments were identified from 52 studies published between 1999 and 2020. They measured neuromuscular function (16 instruments), life impact (five instruments), pain (five instruments) and radiological scoring (five instruments). No instrument had evaluations for all 10 measurement properties and <50% had assessments for all three domains (ie, reliability, validity and responsiveness). There was a paucity of high-quality evidence. Notably, there were no studies that reported on structural validity and no high-quality evidence that discussed content validity. In this context, we identified nine instruments that are interpretable by clinicians: the arm and neck pain scores; the 12-item and 36-item short form health surveys; the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, modified JOA and JOA Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire; the neck disability index; and the visual analogue scale for pain. These include six scores with barriers to application and one score with insufficient criterion and construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: This review aggregates studies evaluating outcome measures used to assess patients with DCM. Overall, there is a need for a set of agreed tools to measure outcomes in DCM. These findings will be used to inform the development of a core measurement set as part of AO Spine RECODE-DCM.

Gathering Global Perspectives to Establish the Research Priorities and Minimum Data Sets for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Sampling Strategy of the First Round Consensus Surveys of AO Spine RECODE-DCM.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey. INTRODUCTION: AO Spine Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (AO Spine RECODE-DCM) is an international initiative that aims to accelerate knowledge discovery and improve outcomes by developing a consensus framework for research. This includes defining the top research priorities, an index term and a minimum data set (core outcome set and core data elements set - core outcome set (COS)/core data elements (CDE)). OBJECTIVE: To describe how perspectives were gathered and report the detailed sampling characteristics. METHODS: A two-stage, electronic survey was used to gather and seek initial consensus. Perspectives were sought from spinal surgeons, other healthcare professionals and people with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Participants were allocated to one of two parallel streams: (1) priority setting or (2) minimum dataset. An email campaign was developed to advertise the survey to relevant global stakeholder individuals and organisations. People with DCM were recruited using the international DCM charity Myelopathy.org and its social media channels. A network of global partners was recruited to act as project ambassadors. Data from Google Analytics, MailChimp and Calibrum helped optimise survey dissemination. RESULTS: Survey engagement was high amongst the three stakeholder groups: 208 people with DCM, 389 spinal surgeons and 157 other healthcare professionals. Individuals from 76 different countries participated; the United States, United Kingdom and Canada were the most common countries of participants. CONCLUSION: AO Spine RECODE-DCM recruited a diverse and sufficient number of participants for an international PSP and COS/CDE process. Whilst PSP and COS/CDE have been undertaken in other fields, to our knowledge, this is the first time they have been combined in one process.

The development of lived experience-centered word clouds to support research uncertainty gathering in degenerative cervical myelopathy: results from an engagement process and protocol for their evaluation, via a nested randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: AO Spine REsearch objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy [RECODE-DCM] is a multi-stakeholder consensus process aiming to promote research efficiency in DCM. It aims to establish the top 10 research uncertainties, through a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership [PSP]. Through a consensus process, research questions are generated and ranked. The inclusion of people with cervical myelopathy [PwCM] is central to the process. We hypothesized that presenting PwCM experience through word cloud generation would stimulate other key stakeholders to generate research questions better aligned with PwCM needs. This protocol outlines our plans to evaluate this as a nested methodological study within our PSP. METHODS: An online poll asked PwCM to submit and vote on words associated with aspects of DCM. After review, a refined word list was re-polled for voting and word submission. Word clouds were generated and an implementation plan for AO Spine RECODE-DCM PSP surveys was subsequently developed. RESULTS: Seventy-nine terms were submitted after the first poll. Eighty-seven refined words were then re-polled (which added a further 39 words). Four word clouds were generated under the categories of diagnosis, management, long-term effects, and other. A 1:1 block randomization protocol to assess word cloud impact on the number and relevance of PSP research questions was generated. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown it is feasible to work with PwCM to generate a tool for the AO Spine RECODE-DCM nested methodological study. Once the survey stage is completed, we will be able to evaluate the impact of the word clouds. Further research will be needed to assess the value of any impact in terms of stimulating a more creative research agenda.

Prevailing Outcome Themes Reported by People With Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Focus Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) arises when arthritic changes of the cervical spine cause compression and a progressive injury to the spinal cord. It is common and potentially disabling. People with DCM have among the lowest quality of life scores (Short Form Health Survey-36 item [SF-36]) of chronic disease, although the drivers of the imapact of DCM are not entirely understood. DCM research faces a number of challenges, including the heterogeneous reporting of study data. The AO Spine Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (RECODE-DCM) project is an international consensus process that aims to improve research efficiency through formation of a core outcome set (COS). A key part of COS development process is organizing outcomes into domains that represent key aspects of the disease. To facilitate this, we sought to qualitatively explore the context and impact of patient-reported outcomes in DCM on study participants. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the research was to qualitatively explore the patient-reported outcomes in DCM to improve understanding of patient perspective and assist the organization of outcomes into domains for the consensus process. METHODS: Focus group sessions were hosted in collaboration with Myelopathy.org, a charity and support group for people with DCM. A 40-minute session was audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Two authors familiarized themselves with the data and then performed data coding independently. Codes were grouped into themes and a thematic analysis was performed guided by Braun and Clarke's 6-phase approach. The themes were subsequently reviewed with an independent stakeholder with DCM, assisting in the process of capturing the true context and importance of themes. RESULTS: Five people with DCM (3 men and 2 women) participated in the focus group session. The median age was 53 years, and the median score on the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale was 11 (interquartile range 9.5-11.5), indicating the participants had moderate to severe DCM. A total of 54 codes were reviewed and grouped into 10 potential themes that captured the impact of the disability on people with DCM: acceptance of symptoms, anticipatory anxiety, coping mechanisms/resilience, feelings of helplessness, financial consequences, lack of recognition, mental health impact, loss of life control, social reclusiveness and isolation, and social stigma. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative analysis of the perspectives of people with DCM has highlighted a number of prevailing themes currently unmeasured in clinical research or care. The determinants of low quality of life in DCM are currently unknown, and these findings provide a novel and so far, unique perspective. Continued inclusion of online communities and use of targeted digital software will be important in establishing a consensus-based COS for patients with DCM that is inclusive of all relevant stakeholders including people with DCM.

Current provision of myelopathy education in medical schools in the UK: protocol for a national medical student survey.

INTRODUCTION: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common, disabling and progressive neurological condition triggered by chronic compression of the cervical spinal cord by surrounding degenerative changes. Early diagnosis and specialist management are essential to reduce disability, yet time to diagnosis is typically prolonged. Lack of sufficient representation of DCM in undergraduate and postgraduate medical curricula may contribute to the poor recognition of DCM by non-specialist doctors in clinical practice.In this study, our objective, therefore, is to assess DCM teaching provision in medical schools throughout the UK and to assess the impact of teaching on the DCM knowledge of UK medical students. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A 19-item questionnaire capturing data on medical student demographics, myelopathy teaching and myelopathy knowledge was designed. Ethical approval was granted by the Psychology Research Ethics Committee, University of Cambridge. An online survey was hosted on Myelopathy.org, an international myelopathy charity. Students studying at a UK medical school are eligible for inclusion. The survey is advertised nationally through university social media pages, university email bulletins and the national student network of Myelopathy.org. Advertisements are scheduled monthly over a 12-month recruitment period. Participation is incentivised by entering consenting participants of completed surveys to an Amazon voucher prize draw. Responses are anonymised using participant-chosen unique identifier codes. A participant information sheet followed by an explicit survey question captures participant informed consent. Regular updates on the progress of the study will be published on Myelopathy.org. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Psychology Research Ethics Committee, University of Cambridge (PRE.2018.099). The findings of the study described in this protocol, and all other related work, will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at scientific conferences.

Patient, sufferer, victim, casualty or person with cervical myelopathy: let us decide our identifier.

Among biomedical journals, person-first language is considered preferable to identity person-first language. However, not all populations of people with certain medical diagnoses, such as deafness, prefer person-first language. Moreover, adherence to person-first language is poor among the literature on some neurological diagnoses. Therefore, it is most appropriate to consult with people with a given diagnosis regarding their preferred identifier. Here, we describe a consensus process undertaken by the REsearch objectives and COmmon Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (RECODE-DCM, recode-dcm.com) steering committee members with cervical myelopathy to determine our preferred identifier.

RE-CODE DCM (REsearch Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy): A Consensus Process to Improve Research Efficiency in DCM, Through Establishment of a Standardized Dataset for Clinical Research and the Definition of the Research Priorities.

STUDY DESIGN: Mixed-method consensus process. OBJECTIVES: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common and disabling condition that arises when mechanical stress damages the spinal cord as a result of degenerative changes in the surrounding spinal structures. RECODE-DCM (REsearch Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy) aims to improve efficient use of health care resources within the field of DCM by using a multi-stakeholder partnership to define the DCM research priorities, to develop a minimum dataset for DCM clinical studies, and confirm a definition of DCM. METHODS: This requires a multi-stakeholder partnership and multiple parallel consensus development processes. It will be conducted via 4 phases, adhering to the guidance set out by the COMET (Core Outcomes in Effectiveness Trials) and JLA (James Lind Alliance) initiatives. Phase 1 will consist of preliminary work to inform online Delphi processes (Phase 2) and a consensus meeting (Phase 3). Following the findings of the consensus meeting, a synthesis of relevant measurement instruments will be compiled and assessed as per the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) criteria, to allow recommendations to be made on how to measure agreed data points. Phase 4 will monitor and promote the use of eventual recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: RECODE-DCM sets out to establish for the first time an index term, minimum dataset, and research priorities together. Our aim is to reduce waste of health care resources in the future by using patient priorities to inform the scope of future DCM research activities. The consistent use of a standard dataset in DCM clinical studies, audit, and clinical surveillance will facilitate pooled analysis of future data and, ultimately, a deeper understanding of DCM.