Outcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery (OACIS) Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Outcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery (OACIS) Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;102:99-106. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.06.007. Epub 2018 Jun 30.
The objective of this study was to elicit feedback on consensus methodology used for core outcome set (COS) development.
An online survey of international Delphi panelists participating in a recent COS for clinical research studies evaluating acute respiratory failure (ARF) survivors was conducted. Panelists represented 14 countries (56% outside the United States).
Seventy (92%) panelists completed the survey, including 32 researchers, 19 professional association representatives, 4 research funding representatives, and 15 ARF survivors/caregiver members. Among respondents, 91% reported that the time required to participate was appropriate and 96% were not bothered by reminders for timely response. Attributes of measurement instruments and voting results from previous rounds were evaluated differently across stakeholder groups. When measurement properties were explained in the stem of the survey question, 59 (84%) panelists (including 73% of survivors/families) correctly interpreted information about an instrument's reliability. Without a reminder in the stem, only 20 (29%) panelists (including 38% of researchers) correctly identified properties of a COS.
This international Delphi panel, including >20% patients/caregivers, favorably reported on feasibility of the methodology. Providing all panelists pertinent information/reminders about the project's objective at each voting round is important to informed decision making across all stakeholder groups.
本研究旨在征求对核心结局集（COS）开发中使用的共识方法的反馈意见。
对参与最近一项评估急性呼吸衰竭（ARF）幸存者的临床研究 COS 的国际 Delphi 小组参与者进行了在线调查。小组成员代表 14 个国家（56%来自美国以外的国家）。
70 名（92%）小组成员完成了调查，其中包括 32 名研究人员、19 名专业协会代表、4 名研究资助代表和 15 名 ARF 幸存者/护理人员成员。在回答者中，91%的人报告说参与所需的时间是合适的，96%的人不会因为及时回复的提醒而感到困扰。测量工具的属性和前几轮投票结果在利益相关者群体之间的评价不同。当在调查问题的标题中解释测量属性时，59 名（84%）小组成员（包括 73%的幸存者/家属）正确解释了仪器可靠性的信息。如果标题中没有提醒，只有 20 名（包括 38%的研究人员）小组成员正确识别了 COS 的属性。
这个国际 Delphi 小组，包括超过 20%的患者/护理人员，对该方法的可行性给予了好评。在每个投票轮次向所有小组成员提供有关项目目标的所有相关信息/提醒对于所有利益相关者群体的明智决策非常重要。
