Smith Harriet, Horobin Adele, Fackrell Kathryn, Colley Veronica, Thacker Brian, Hall Deborah A
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Ropewalk House, 113 The Ropewalk, Nottingham, NG1 5DU UK.
2Otology and Hearing Group, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2UH UK.
Res Involv Engagem. 2018 Mar 2;4:8. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0091-5. eCollection 2018.
Outcome domains are aspects of a condition that matter to patients and clinicians and can be measured to assess treatment effects. For tinnitus, examples include 'tinnitus loudness' and 'ability to concentrate'. This study focuses on the first stage of agreeing which outcome domains should be measured in all clinical trials of tinnitus. Crucially, it involves identifying outcome domains, prior to a voting process. This article describes how we effectively involved patients in that study design process, and reflects on the impact of their input.The study first compiled a long list of all possible outcome domains before asking interested parties, including patients, to vote which ones to include. Ensuring patients fully participate in this process holds unique challenges as it can be long, repetitive and its purpose far removed from their needs. These challenges may be addressed by involving patients in designing the research. There is evidence that other research teams are doing this, but its reporting is not detailed enough to guide others. Our paper seeks to address this.We describe how we involved patients (people living with tinnitus) in creating a long list of outcome domains that we included in our study. We also reflect on the benefits this brought. Two patients partnered with us in designing the survey. We also consulted an independent patient review panel. Involving patients reduced the list of domains included in the survey and made domain names and associated descriptions clearer. Our resulting survey performed well in recruiting and retaining patients as participants.
Tinnitus is a complex audiological condition affecting many different domains of everyday life. Clinical trials of tinnitus interventions measure and report those outcome domains inconsistently and this hinders direct comparison between study findings. To address this problem, an ongoing project is developing a Core Outcome Set; an agreed list of outcome domains to be measured and reported in all future trials. Part of this project uses a consensus methodology ('Delphi' survey), whereby all relevant stakeholders identify important and critical outcome domains from a long list of candidates. This article addresses a gap in the patient involvement literature by describing and reflecting on our involvement of patients to create a meaningful long list of candidate outcome domains. Two Public Research Partners with lived experience of tinnitus reviewed an initial list of 124 outcome domains over two face-to-face workshops. With the Study Management Team, they interpreted each candidate outcome domain and generated a plain language description. Following this, the domain names and descriptions underwent an additional lay review by 14 patients and 5 clinical experts, via an online survey platform. Insights gained from the workshops and survey feedback prompted substantial, unforeseen modifications to the long list. These included the reduction of the number of outcome domains (from 124 to 66) via the exclusion of broad concepts and consolidation of equivalent domains or domains outside the scope of the study. Reviewers also applied their lived experience of tinnitus to bring clarity and relevance to domain names and plain language descriptions. Four impacts on the Delphi survey were observed: recruitment exceeded the target by 171%, there were equivalent numbers of patient and professional participants ( = 358 and = 312, respectively), feedback was mostly positive, and retention was high (87%). Patient involvement was an integral and transformative step of the study design process. Patient involvement was impactful because the online Delphi survey was successful in recruiting and retaining participants, and there were many comments about a positive participatory experience. Seven general methodological features are highlighted which fit with general principles of good patient involvement. These can benefit other Core Outcome Set developers.
结局领域是疾病的一些方面,对患者和临床医生来说很重要,并且可以进行测量以评估治疗效果。对于耳鸣而言,示例包括“耳鸣响度”和“注意力集中能力”。本研究聚焦于确定在所有耳鸣临床试验中应测量哪些结局领域的第一阶段。关键在于,在投票过程之前要先确定结局领域。本文描述了我们如何有效地让患者参与该研究设计过程,并思考了他们的意见所产生的影响。该研究首先编制了一份包含所有可能结局领域的长清单,然后邀请包括患者在内的相关各方投票决定纳入哪些领域。确保患者充分参与这一过程存在独特的挑战,因为这一过程可能漫长、重复,且其目的与患者需求相去甚远。通过让患者参与研究设计可以应对这些挑战。有证据表明其他研究团队正在这样做,但其报告不够详细,无法为他人提供指导。我们的论文旨在解决这一问题。我们描述了我们如何让耳鸣患者参与创建我们研究中包含的结局领域长清单。我们还思考了这带来的益处。两名患者与我们合作设计了调查问卷。我们还咨询了一个独立的患者评审小组。让患者参与使调查问卷中包含的领域清单得以精简,并使领域名称和相关描述更加清晰。我们最终的调查问卷在招募和留住患者作为参与者方面表现良好。
耳鸣是一种复杂的听觉疾病,会影响日常生活的许多不同领域。耳鸣干预措施的临床试验在测量和报告这些结局领域时不一致,这阻碍了研究结果之间的直接比较。为解决这一问题,一个正在进行的项目正在制定一个核心结局集;这是一份在所有未来试验中要测量和报告的结局领域的商定清单。该项目的一部分采用了一种共识方法(“德尔菲”调查),即所有相关利益相关者从一长串候选领域中确定重要和关键的结局领域。本文通过描述和思考我们让患者参与创建一份有意义的候选结局领域长清单的过程,填补了患者参与文献中的一个空白。两名有耳鸣亲身经历的公众研究伙伴在两次面对面研讨会上审查了一份包含124个结局领域的初始清单。他们与研究管理团队一起解读了每个候选结局领域,并生成了通俗易懂的描述。在此之后,领域名称和描述通过在线调查平台接受了另外14名患者和5名临床专家的外行审查。从研讨会和调查反馈中获得的见解促使对长清单进行了大量、意想不到的修改。这些修改包括通过排除宽泛概念以及合并等效领域或超出研究范围的领域,减少结局领域的数量(从124个减至66个)。评审人员还运用他们的耳鸣亲身经历,使领域名称和通俗易懂的描述更加清晰和相关。观察到对德尔菲调查有四个影响:招募人数超出目标171%,患者和专业参与者数量相当(分别为358人和312人),反馈大多是积极的,并且留存率很高(87%)。患者参与是研究设计过程中不可或缺且具有变革性的一步。患者参与之所以有成效,是因为在线德尔菲调查成功招募并留住了参与者,并且有许多关于积极参与体验的评论。文中强调了七个符合良好患者参与一般原则的通用方法学特征。这些特征可以使其他核心结局集开发者受益。