Involving different stakeholders in prioritising outcomes to assess healthcare systems response for type 1 diabetes management: Using co-creation approaches in Peru.

BACKGROUND: Engaging diverse stakeholders in developing core outcome sets (COSs) can produce more meaningful metrics as well as research responsive to patient needs. The most common COS prioritisation method, Delphi surveys, has limitations related to selection bias and participant understanding, while qualitative methods like group discussions are less frequently used. This study aims to test a co-creation approach to COS development for type 1 diabetes (T1DM) in Peru. METHODS: Using a co-creation approach, we aimed to prioritise outcomes for T1DM management in Peru, incorporating perspectives from people with T1DM, caregivers, healthcare professionals, and decision-makers. A set of outcomes were previously identified through a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. Through qualitative descriptive methods, including in-person workshops, each group of stakeholders contributed to the ranking of outcomes. Decision-makers also discussed the feasibility of measuring these outcomes within the Peruvian healthcare system. RESULTS: While priorities varied among participant groups, all underscored the significance of monitoring healthcare system functionality over mortality. Participants recognized the interconnected nature of healthcare system performance, clinical outcomes, self-management, and quality of life. When combining the rankings from all the groups, metrics related to economic impact on the individual and structural support, policies promoting health, and protecting those living with T1DM were deemed more important in comparison to measuring clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: We present the first COS for T1DM focused on low-and-middle-income countries and show aspects of care that are relevant in this setting. Diverse prioritisation among participant groups underscores the need of inclusive decision-making processes. By incorporating varied perspectives, healthcare systems can better address patient needs and enhance overall care quality.

Inclusion of harm outcomes in Core Outcome Sets requires careful consideration.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of all published core outcome set (COS) studies that include an adverse event or harm outcome, to determine the proportion of individual versus pooled harms, and to investigate characteristics that influence their inclusion. METHODS: We examined the extent to which a sample of 100 published COS studies (from January 2021 to January 2023) include both pooled and individual harms in the final COS. One investigator extracted the information from the COS studies, which was cross-checked against previous COS investigational research, and where possible verified with COS authors or a pharmacologist. Using QualtricsTM, we conducted a personalised online survey of developers of the 100 COS to ask them about the importance, their experiences, and methodological approaches for dealing with harms within their COS development studies. RESULTS: One hundred COS were identified from 91 separate COS studies, the majority of which considered most of the minimum standards for development. Two-thirds (65%) of the COS included at least one harm outcome. In total, 1104 core outcomes were identified across the 100 COS, of which 184 (17%) were harm outcomes (154 individual vs. 56 pooled). Individual harms were more likely to be included in a final COS if they were developed for single treatment interventions (50%) compared to those being developed for multi-treatment modalities (39%). Some COS developers adopted outcome frameworks as part of their COS development process to facilitate the inclusion of harm outcomes in their final COS. A third (33%) of respondents felt that harm outcomes should be included in all COS but over half (56%) thought this would be dependent on some aspect of the scope of the COS and improved methodology and awareness of how to deal with harm outcomes in the COS development process. CONCLUSION: Harm outcomes are already included in many COS either as individual or pooled harms. It is evident that there are some challenges with regards to both the methodology and necessity to include harms within a COS (pooled or individual. COS developers should carefully consider the need to include important harms outcomes in relation to the scope of the COS that they are developing.

Development of a core domain set for ankle osteoarthritis: An international consensus study of patients and health professionals.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an internationally agreed-upon core domain set for ankle osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: In a three-part Delphi process, a group of multidisciplinary health professionals with expertise in ankle OA and people with ankle OA responded to online questionnaires. The questionnaires proposed a list of 29 candidate domains derived from a systematic review of ankle OA research, and interviews with people with ankle OA and health professionals. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥70% agreement in people with ankle OA and health professionals whether a domain should or should not be included in a core domain set. RESULTS: A total of 100 people (75 health professionals and 25 people with ankle OA) from 18 countries (4 continents) participated in this study. Five domains reached consensus for inclusion in a core domain set for ankle OA - pain severity, health-related quality of life, function, disability and ankle range of motion. Twenty-one candidate domains reached agreement not to be included in the core domain set, and three domains remained undecided (ankle instability, physical capacity, and mental health). CONCLUSION: This international consensus study, which included people with ankle OA and health professionals, has established a core domain set for ankle OA with five domains that should be measured and reported in all ankle OA trials - pain severity, health-related quality of life, function, disability and ankle range of motion. This core domain set will guide the reporting of outcomes in clinical trials on ankle OA. Future research should determine which outcome measurement instruments should be used to measure each of the core domains.

What to Measure in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Haemorrhage Research-An International Delphi Survey.

Aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) is a devastating condition with high mortality and morbidity. The outcome measures used in aSAH clinical research vary making it challenging to compare and combine different studies. Additionally, there may be a mismatch between the outcomes prioritized by patients, caregivers, and health care providers and those selected by researchers. We conducted an international, online, multiple round Delphi study to develop consensus on domains (where a domain is a health concept or aspect) prioritized by key stakeholders including those with lived experience of aSAH, health care providers, and researchers, funders, or industry professionals. One hundred seventy-five people participated in the survey, 59% of whom had lived experience of aSAH. Over three rounds, 32 domains reached the consensus threshold pre-defined as 70% of participants rating the domain as being critically important. During the fourth round, participants ranked the importance of each of these 32 domains. The top ten domains ranked highest to lowest were (1) Cognition and executive function, (2) Aneurysm obliteration, (3) Cerebral infarction, (4) Functional outcomes including ability to walk, (5) Delayed cerebral ischemia, (6) The overall quality of life as reported by the SAH survivor, (7) Changes to emotions or mood (including depression), (8) The basic activities of daily living, (9) Vasospasm, and (10) ICU complications. Our findings confirm that there is a mismatch between domains prioritized by stakeholders and outcomes used in clinical research. Our future work aims to address this mismatch through the development of a core outcome set in aSAH research.

Glottic insufficiency caused by vocal fold atrophy with or without sulcus: systematic review of outcome measurements.

PURPOSE: Identifying outcome measurements instruments (OMIs) to evaluate treatment efficacy in patients with vocal fold atrophy and/or sulcus. METHODS: Systematic review of records published before March 2021 by searching Pubmed and EMBASE. Included studies reported on adults (> 18 year) with dysphonia caused by glottic insufficiency due to vocal fold atrophy with or without sulcus, who were enrolled into a randomized controlled trial, a non-randomized controlled trial, a case-controlled study or a cohort study. All included studies described an intervention with at least one outcome measurement. RESULTS: A total of 5456 studies were identified. After removing duplicates, screening title and abstract and full text screening of selected records, 34 publications were included in final analysis. From these 50 separate OMIs were recorded and categorized according to the ELS protocol by DeJonckere et al. (Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 258: 77-82, 2001). With most OMIs being used in multiple studies the total number of OMIs reported was 265. Nineteen (19) individual OMIs accounted for 80% of reports. The most frequently used OMIs according to category were: VHI and VHI-10 (subjective evaluation); G of GRBAS (perceptual evaluation); F0, Jitter and Shimmer (acoustic evaluation); MPT and MFR (aerodynamic evaluation) and glottic closure and mucosal wave (endoscopic evaluation). Of these OMIs VHI had a high percentage of significance of 90%. CONCLUSION: This systematic review identifies the most used OMIs in patients with glottic incompetency due to vocal fold atrophy and/or sulcus as a step toward defining a Core Outcome Set (COS) for this population. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: 238274.

Developing a core outcome set for acetabular fractures: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials investigating acetabular fractures are heterogeneous in their investigated outcomes and their corresponding measurements. Standardization may facilitate comparability and pooling of research results, which would lead to an increase in knowledge about the optimal treatment of acetabular fractures, resulting in long-term evidence-based treatment decisions and improvements in patient care. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the reported outcomes and their measurements from studies on treatments for acetabular fractures to develop a core outcome set which contains the most relevant outcome measures to be included in future studies. METHODS: Studies published in English and German including patients aged 16 years and older, with a surgically treated acetabular fracture, will be included. Studies with nonsurgical treatment, pathologic fractures, polytraumatized patients, and patients younger than 16 years of age will be excluded because other outcomes may be of interest in these cases. Any prospective and retrospective study will be included. Systematic reviews will be excluded, but their included studies will be screened for eligibility. The literature will be searched on MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. Risk of selective reporting of outcomes will be assessed using the Outcome Reporting Bias in Trials classification system. Heterogeneously defined outcomes that measure the same outcome will be grouped and subsequently categorized into outcome domains using the taxonomy of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative. DISCUSSION: It is expected that a high number of studies will be included, and many outcomes will be identified using different definitions and measurement instruments. A limitation of this systematic review is that only previously investigated outcomes will be detected, thus disregarding potentially relevant outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022357644.

Development of the Korean Medicine Core Outcome Set for Facial Palsy: herbal medicine treatment of patients with facial palsy in primary clinics.

Introduction: Facial palsy (FP) significantly affects the quality of life of patients and poses a treatment challenge in primary healthcare settings. This study aimed to develop a Korean medicine (KM) core outcome set (COS) for FP, with a focus on evaluating the effectiveness of herbal medicine (HM) treatments in KM primary clinics. Methods: Outcomes and effect modifiers related to FP treatments were initially identified through related review articles. Subsequently, experts in the field took part in three rounds of modified Delphi consensus exercises to refine and prioritize these outcomes and effect modifiers. Additionally, primary KM clinicians were involved in a Delphi consensus round to assess the suitability and feasibility of the proposed COS in real-world clinical settings. Results: The initial review of related literature identified 44 relevant studies, resulting in an initial selection of 23 outcomes and 10 effect modifiers. The expert consensus process refined these to 8 key outcomes and 6 effect modifiers, which established the foundation of the COS-FP-KM. Subsequently, primary KM clinicians confirmed the practicality and applicability of the COS, endorsing its suitability for use in KM primary clinics. Conclusion: The COS-FP-KM establishes a standardized approach for assessing HM treatment effectiveness in FP patients in KM primary clinics. The COS-FP-KM encourages consistent outcome reporting and enhances patient care quality. Future work should aim to integrate broader stakeholder perspectives to refine and validate the COS further.

Using patient and care partner experiences to confirm outcomes of relevance for inclusion in a core outcome set for trials of physical rehabilitation in critical illness: A qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Incorporating the perspectives of patients and care partners is crucial in the development of core outcome sets. One effective approach for achieving this involvement is by seeking input to refine the outcomes for consensus. The objectives of the study were to: i) to determine patient and care partner views on outcomes that should be measured in trials of physical rehabilitation interventions across the critical illness recovery continuum; (ii) to map these views with a pre-established list of thirty outcomes for potential inclusion in a core outcome set for these trials; and (iii) to identify any new outcomes that could be considered for inclusion. METHODS: A qualitative semistructured telephone interview study was conducted with a convenience sample of post-critical illness patients and care partners, as part of core outcome set development work. Anonymised interview transcripts were analysed using a framework approach, and exemplary narrative quotes from participants were reported used to illustrate outcome reporting. FINDINGS: Fourteen participants were recruited (male:female ratio = 8:6, age range [minimum-maximum]: 50-80 years, 13 former patients, one spouse). Time since intensive care unit discharge ranged from less than 1 year to 10 years at the time of interview. Participants described a range of outcomes that could be measured in trials of physical rehabilitation after critical illness that mapped closely with the pre-established list. No new outcomes were introduced by participants during the interviews. Experiences described by participants commonly reflected outcomes related to physical ability and performance, functional level, activities of daily living, and emotional and mental wellbeing. Participants spoke to how the different outcomes directly impacted their day-to-day lives and highlighted their priorities centred around resumption of tasks and activities that had value to them at personal, functional, and societal level. CONCLUSION: Qualitative interviews confirmed the relevance of existing outcomes for potential inclusion in a core outcome set for trials of physical rehabilitation interventions across the critical illness recovery continuum. The added significance of our findings is to provide real-world meaning to these outcomes. REGISTRATION: COMET Initiative, ID288, https://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/288.

Outcomes of interventions in neonatal sepsis: A systematic review of qualitative research.

BACKGROUND: While a systematic review exists detailing neonatal sepsis outcomes from clinical trials, there remains an absence of a qualitative systematic review capturing the perspectives of key stakeholders. OBJECTIVES: Our aim is to identify outcomes from qualitative research on any intervention to prevent or improve the outcomes of neonatal sepsis that are important to parents, other family members, healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers as a part of the development of a core outcome set (COS) for neonatal sepsis. SEARCH STRATEGY: A literature search was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Publications describing qualitative data relating to neonatal sepsis outcomes were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Drawing on the concepts of thematic synthesis, texts related to outcomes were coded and grouped. These outcomes were then mapped to the domain headings of an existing model. MAIN RESULTS: Out of 6777 records screened, six studies were included. Overall, 19 outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The most frequently reported outcomes were those in the domains related to parents, healthcare workers and individual organ systemas such as gastrointestinal system. The remaining outcomes were classified under the headings of general outcomes, miscellaneous outcomes, survival, and infection. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes identified in this review are different from those reported in neonatal sepsis clinical trials, thus highlighting the importance of incorporating qualitative studies into COS development to encapsulate all relevant stakeholders' perspectives.

Toward a core outcome set for faecal incontinence-A systematic review of outcomes reported in the literature.

AIM: Faecal incontinence (FI) is a prevalent issue which can have a detrimental impact on the patient's quality of life. Current international guidelines lack strong treatment recommendations due to few studies in the field, in combination with the heterogeneity in outcome reporting. To address this, a core outcome set (COS) is proposed to standardize outcome reporting in FI studies, facilitating meta-analyses and enhancing therapeutic recommendations. Through several steps outlined by COMET 'what' to measure will be determined prior to determining 'how' to measure these outcomes. This systematic review aims to identify 'what' outcomes have been used in FI intervention studies so far in adult patients as a starting phase for the development of a future COS for FI. METHOD: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library were searched to identify all outcomes reported in comparative effectiveness trials assessing one or more treatment option in adult patients suffering from FI. The outcomes were categorized according to the Core Outcome Measurement in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) taxonomy to standardize outcome terminology, assess completeness, and inform subsequent steps in COS development. RESULTS: A total of 109 studies were included, which revealed 51 unique outcomes classified into 38 domains within four core areas. On average four outcomes were reported per study (range 1-11). The most commonly reported outcomes were "severity of FI" (83%), "quality of life" (64%), "number of FI episodes" (40%), "anorectal motor function" (39%), and "frequency of bowel movements" (16%). CONCLUSION: This systematic review offers an overview of outcomes reported in FI studies, highlighting the heterogeneity between studies. This heterogeneity emphasizes the need for standardizing outcome reporting which can be established through the creation of a COS.

Surgical Handover Core Outcome Measures (SH-CORE): a protocol for the development of a core outcome set for trials in surgical handover.

BACKGROUND: Surgical handover is associated with a significant risk of care failures. Existing research displays methodological deficiencies and little consensus on the outcomes that should be used to evaluate interventions in this area. This paper reports a protocol to develop a core outcome set (COS) to support standardisation, comparability, and evidence synthesis in future studies of surgical handover between doctors. METHODS: This study adheres to the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative guidance for COS development, including the COS-Standards for Development (COS-STAD) and Reporting (COS-STAR) recommendations. It has been registered prospectively on the COMET database and will be led by an international steering group that includes surgical healthcare professionals, researchers, and patient and public partners. An initial list of reported outcomes was generated through a systematic review of interventions to improve surgical handover (PROSPERO: CRD42022363198). Findings of a qualitative evidence synthesis of patient and public perspectives on handover will augment this list, followed by a real-time Delphi survey involving all stakeholder groups. Each Delphi participant will then be invited to take part in at least one online consensus meeting to finalise the COS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) Research Ethics Committee (202309015, 7th November 2023). Results will be presented at surgical scientific meetings and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. A plain English summary will be disseminated through national websites and social media. The authors aim to integrate the COS into the handover curriculum of the Irish national surgical training body and ensure it is shared internationally with other postgraduate surgical training programmes. Collaborators will be encouraged to share the findings with relevant national health service functions and national bodies. DISCUSSION: This study will represent the first published COS for interventions to improve surgical handover, the first use of a real-time Delphi survey in a surgical context, and will support the generation of better-quality evidence to inform best practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative 2675.  http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2675 .

"Now I Am Walking Toward Health": A Qualitative Study About the Outcomes of Physical Activity Participation That Matter to Older Adults.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials that deliver physical activity interventions have demonstrated benefits for older adults across numerous health outcomes. However, too little attention has been directed to ensuring that such trials are measuring patient-relevant outcomes. To support outcome selection for future trials, the objective of this study was to understand what outcomes related to their physical activity participation older adults find important. METHODS: We conducted 12 semistructured interviews with adults aged 65 years and older and analyzed interview transcripts with a reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Older adults desired diverse outcomes from their physical activity participation, ranging from generic (e.g., quality of life) to specific (e.g., leg strength). Relevant outcomes were classified under five themes: physical, clinical, social, psychological, and overarching, each with respective subthemes. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes that older adults found important were plentiful and rooted in a desire to improve their quality of life. Some of the outcome themes have been reported frequently in past trials (e.g., physical), but others have not (e.g., social). Future researchers should be aware of, and responsive to, the priorities of older adults when designing trials and defining outcomes. Significance/Implications: This study will help to improve outcome selection for future trials of physical activity with older adults. In alignment with a patient-oriented research philosophy, this study will also ground future outcome selection in the priorities of older adults.

Core outcome Set for Cardio-oncology (COS-CO): development of a set of outcomes for the cardiovascular assessment and monitoring of cancer patients and survivors.

AIMS: There is an increasing awareness of the evidence-based selection of outcomes to be measured in clinical trials and clinical practice. Currently, there is no core outcome set (COS) for cardio-oncology, which may hinder the (inter)national comparison of the effectiveness of research and the quality of cardio-oncology care. The aim of this study is to develop a standard and pragmatic patient-centred outcome set to assess and monitor cancer patients and survivors at risk of or with cardiovascular diseases. METHODS & RESULTS: A list of outcome domains was generated through a review of registries and guidelines, and six patient interviews. The project team reviewed and refined the outcome domains prior to starting a two-round Delphi procedure conducted between January-June 2022. The panellists, including healthcare providers and researchers, were invited to rate the importance of the outcomes. 26 experts from 11 countries rated a list of 93 outcomes (round 1) and 63 outcomes (round 2) to gain consensus on a list of outcome measures, and of demographic factors, health status and treatment variables. The final COS includes 15 outcome measures, reflecting four core areas: life impact (n = 2), pathophysiological manifestations (n = 9), resource use/economic impact (n = 1), and mortality/survival (n = 3). Next, six demographic factors, 21 health status, three cardiovascular and nine cancer variables were included. CONCLUSION: This is the first international development of a COS for cardio-oncology. This set aims to facilitate (inter)national comparison in cardio-oncology care, using standardised parameters and meaningful patient-centred outcomes for research and quality of care assessments.

Analysis of outcome reporting in sciatic neuropathy studies: a systematic review of the literature.

PURPOSE: As a first step towards developing a core outcome set (COS) for sciatic neuropathy, the goal of the current study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to identify outcome measures that have been previously reported in studies on sciatic neuropathy. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature from 2000-2024 was performed utilizing PubMed and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Identified articles were screened according to study inclusion/exclusion criteria. Outcome measures reported in each included study were recorded and categorized into motor, sensory, pain, patient-reported outcomes, electrodiagnostic outcomes, imaging outcomes, and composite outcomes. Descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1586 articles were initially identified, and 31 articles met criteria for inclusion and underwent analysis. The most common outcome domain was pain. A pain outcome was reported in 17 (63%) studies. A motor outcome was reported in 10 (37%) studies; 6 (22%) reported a sensory outcome; 1 (4%) reported a composite outcome; 4 (15%) reported an electrodiagnostic outcome; 5 (19%) reported a patient-reported outcome; 3 (11%) reported an imaging outcome. Across the included studies, 21 unique outcomes were reported. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified the outcome measures that have previously been utilized in studies on sciatic neuropathy. Previously used outcome measures fell into seven domains: motor outcomes, sensory outcomes, pain outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, electrodiagnostic outcomes, imaging outcomes, and composite outcomes. Pain outcomes were most commonly used across the included studies.

The outcomes measured and reported in observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma: A systematic review.

Background: The clinical management of patients with incidental intracranial meningioma varies markedly and is often based on clinician choice and observational data. Heterogeneous outcome measurement has likely hampered knowledge progress by preventing comparative analysis of similar cohorts of patients. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in observational studies. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify published full texts describing active monitoring of adult cohorts with incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL via EBSCO, completed January 24, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were de-duplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" (COMET) initiative. Results: Thirty-three published articles and 1 ongoing study were included describing 32 unique studies: study designs were retrospective n = 27 and prospective n = 5. In total, 268 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 77 were defined. Following de-duplication, 178 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 53 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 9 outcome domains and 3 core areas. Conclusions: Outcome measurement across observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a Core Outcome Set for use in future observational studies.

The outcomes measured and reported in intracranial meningioma clinical trials: A systematic review.

Background: Meningioma clinical trials have assessed interventions including surgery, radiotherapy, and pharmacotherapy. However, agreement does not exist on what, how, and when outcomes of interest should be measured. To do so would allow comparative analysis of similar trials. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in meningioma clinical trials. Methods: Systematic literature and trial registry searches were performed to identify published and ongoing intracranial meningioma clinical trials (PubMed, Embase, Medline, CINAHL via EBSCO, and Web of Science, completed January 22, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were deduplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" (COMET) initiative. Results: Thirty published articles and 18 ongoing studies were included, describing 47 unique clinical trials: Phase 2 n = 33, phase 3 n = 14. Common interventions included: Surgery n = 13, radiotherapy n = 8, and pharmacotherapy n = 20. In total, 659 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 84 were defined. Following de-duplication, 415 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 115 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 29 outcome domains and 5 core areas. Conclusions: Outcome measurement across meningioma clinical trials is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a core outcome set for use in future meningioma clinical trials.

An International, Multidisciplinary Consensus Set of Patient-Centered Outcome Measures for Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders.

Background: In 1990, the United States' Institute of Medicine promoted the principles of outcomes monitoring in the alcohol and other drugs treatment field to improve the evidence synthesis and quality of research. While various national outcome measures have been developed and employed, no global consensus on standard measurement has been agreed for addiction. It is thus timely to build an international consensus. Convened by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), an international, multi-disciplinary working group reviewed the existing literature and reached consensus for a globally applicable minimum set of outcome measures for people who seek treatment for addiction. Methods: To this end, 26 addiction experts from 11 countries and 5 continents, including people with lived experience (n = 5; 19%), convened over 16 months (December 2018-March 2020) to develop recommendations for a minimum set of outcome measures. A structured, consensus-building, modified Delphi process was employed. Evidence-based proposals for the minimum set of measures were generated and discussed across eight videoconferences and in a subsequent structured online consultation. The resulting set was reviewed by 123 professionals and 34 people with lived experience internationally. Results: The final consensus-based recommendation includes alcohol, substance, and tobacco use disorders, as well as gambling and gaming disorders in people aged 12 years and older. Recommended outcome domains are frequency and quantity of addictive disorders, symptom burden, health-related quality of life, global functioning, psychosocial functioning, and overall physical and mental health and wellbeing. Standard case-mix (moderator) variables and measurement time points are also recommended. Conclusions: Use of consistent and meaningful outcome measurement facilitates carer-patient relations, shared decision-making, service improvement, benchmarking, and evidence synthesis for the evaluation of addiction treatment services and the dissemination of best practices. The consensus set of recommended outcomes is freely available for adoption in healthcare settings globally.

"I couldn't carry on taking a drug like that": A qualitative study of patient perspectives on side effects from rheumatology drugs.

OBJECTIVES: There is growing interest in collecting outcome information directly from patients in clinical trials. This study evaluates what patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) consider important to know about symptomatic side effects they may experience from a new prescription drug. METHODS: Patients with inflammatory arthritis, who had one or more prescribed drugs for their disease for at least 12 months, participated in focus groups and individual interviews. Discussions were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: We conducted seven focus groups with 34 participants across three continents. We found four overarching and two underpinning themes. The 'impact on life' was connected to participants 'daily life', 'family life', 'work life', and 'social life'. In 'psychological and physical aspects' participants described 'limitation to physical function', 'emotional dysregulation' and 'an overall mental state'. Extra tests, hospital visits and payment for medication were considered a 'time, energy and financial burden' of side effects. Participants explained important measurement issues to be 'severity', 'frequency', and 'duration'. Underpinning these issues, participants evaluated the 'benefit-harm-balance' which includes 'the cumulative burden' of having several side effects and the persistence of side effects over time. CONCLUSIONS: In treatment for RMDs, there seems to be an urgent need for feasible measures of patient-reported bother (impact on life and cumulative burden) from side effects and the benefit-harm-balance. These findings contribute new evidence in support of a target domain-an outcome that represents the patient voice evaluating the symptomatic treatment-related side effects for people with RMDs enrolled in clinical trials.