Toward the Development of a Core Set of Outcome Domains to Assess Shared Decision-making Interventions in Rheumatology: Results from an OMERACT Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting

Abstract

Objective The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Working Group is to determine the core set of outcome Domains and subDomains for measuring the effectiveness of shared decision making (SDM) interventions in rheumatology clinical trials. Methods Following the OMERACT Filter 2.0, and based on a previous literature review of SDM outcome domains and a nominal group process at OMERACT 2014, a) an online Delphi survey was conducted to gather feedback on the draft core set and refine its Domains and subDomains; and b) a workshop was held at the OMERACT 2016 meeting to gain consensus on the draft core set. Results A total of 170 participants completed Round 1 of the Delphi survey, and 116 completed Round 2. Respondents came from 29 countries with 49% being patients/caregivers. Results showed that 14 out of 17 subDomains within the seven Domains exceeded the 70% criterion (endorsement ranged from 83% to 100% of respondents). At OMERACT 2016, only 8% of the 96 attendees were patients/caregivers. Despite initial votes of support in breakout groups, there was insufficient comfort about the conceptualization of these seven Domains and 17 SubDomains, for these to be endorsed at OMERACT 2016 (endorsement ranged from 17% to 68% of participants). Conclusion Differences between the Delphi survey and consensus meeting may be explained by the manner in which the outcomes were presented, variations in participant characteristics and the context of voting. Further efforts are needed to address the limited understanding of SDM and its outcomes among OMERACT stakeholders.

Role of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures on Predicting Outcome of Bunion Surgery

“…20 As a solution, some propose shared decision-making tools to ensure better comprehension of risks and expectations. 21,22 However, these tools are usually specific to a procedure or disease and may lack input from patients. 22 A potential solution is to use patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for shared decision making preoperatively.…”

“…21,22 However, these tools are usually specific to a procedure or disease and may lack input from patients. 22 A potential solution is to use patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for shared decision making preoperatively. PROs such as the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) are based on patients' symptoms and are agnostic to disease.…”

European Society of Coloproctology Core Outcome Set for haemorrhoidal disease: an international Delphi study among healthcare professionals

“…Since the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filer 2.0 resulted in successful development and implementation of COSs for many other diseases, we used their methodology [16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. The OMERACT Filter is a conceptual framework which encompasses the entire content of what is measureable in a study.…”

Outcomes for Pressure Ulcer Trials (OUTPUTs): protocol for the development of a core domain set for trials evaluating the clinical efficacy or effectiveness of pressure ulcer prevention interventions

“…The decision regarding which outcome should be included in the preliminary core domain set will follow a consensus definition already used in previous COS projects [13, 63] and favoured by the OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) initiative [53, 64]. According to this decision rule, each outcome may fall into one of three categories: (a) consensus that the outcome should be part of the COS (≥ 70% participants scoring 7 to 9 and ≤ 15% participants scoring 1 to 3); (b) consensus that the outcome should not be part of the COS (≥ 70% participants scoring 1 to 3 and ≤ 15% participants scoring 7 to 9); (c) no consensus (any other scoring distributions) [10].…”