RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
Objective: To understand which outcome measures patients and their families, health care providers, and researchers prioritize after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional q-sort survey with participants from three key stakeholder groups. Potential outcomes were identified from interviews and focus groups. Participants were purposively sampled to achieve diversity based on stakeholder group, geography, and profession. Respondents sorted 27 outcomes in a quasi-normally distributed grid (Q-Sort) from most to least important. Principal components analysis was used to determine similarities in the way participants sorted the outcome measures resulting in distinct groupings. Overall rankings were also reported. Results: 112 participants were invited. 70 responded and 64 participants from 25 different countries completed a Q-sort. Balanced stakeholder representation was achieved. Five distinct patterns were identified based on survival, pathophysiological, psychological, resource use, and functional outcome measures. Quality of life as reported by the patient was the highest ranked outcome measure followed by independence and functional measures. Survival and biomedical outcomes were ranked in the middle and cost measures last. Conclusions: In this diverse sample of key stakeholders, we characterized several distinct perspectives with respect to outcome measure selection in aSAH. We did not identify a clear pattern of opinion based on stakeholder group or other participant characteristics. Patient-reported measure of quality of life was ranked the most important overall with function and independence also highly rated. These results will assist study design and inform efforts to improve outcome selection in aSAH research.
