MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall methods were guided by the Core Outcome Set Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. Initial outcome identification was achieved from focus groups with PWLE employing calibrated methods across two low-middle-income countries (China and Malaysia) and two high-income countries (Spain and the United Kingdom). Following consolidation of the results, the outcomes were incorporated into a three-stage Delphi process with PWLE participation. Finally, consensus between PWLE and DPs was achieved using a mixed live and recorded platform. The experiences of PWLE involvement in the process was also evaluated.
RESULTS: Thirty-one PWLE participated in four focus groups. Thirty-four outcomes were suggested across the focus groups. Evaluation of the focus groups revealed a high level of satisfaction with the engagement process and some new learning. Seventeen PWLE contributed to the first 2 Delphi rounds and 7 to the third round. The final consensus included 17 PWLE (47%) and 19 DPs (53%). Out of the total of 11 final consensus outcomes considered essential by both PWLE and health professionals, 7 (64%) outcomes mapped across to ones that PWLE initially identified, broadening their definition. One outcome (PWLE effort required for treatment and maintenance) was entirely novel.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that engaging PWLE in COS development can be achieved across widely different communities. Furthermore, the process both broadened and enriched overall outcome consensus, yielding important and novel perspectives for health-related research.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A previous systematic review identified 115 outcomes in 60 trials and systematic reviews evaluating treatments for children with appendicitis, suggesting the need for a COS.
METHODS: The development process consisted of 4 phases: (1) an updated systematic review identifying all previously reported outcomes, (2) a 2-stage international Delphi study in which parents with their children and surgeons rated these outcomes for inclusion in the COS, (3) focus groups with young people to identify missing outcomes, and (4) international expert meetings to ratify the final COS.
RESULTS: The systematic review identified 129 outcomes which were mapped to 43 unique outcome terms for the Delphi survey. The first-round included 137 parents (8 countries) and 245 surgeons (10 countries), the second-round response rates were 61% and 85% respectively, with 10 outcomes emerging with consensus. After 2 young peoples' focus groups, 2 additional outcomes were added to the final COS (12): mortality, bowel obstruction, intraabdominal abscess, recurrent appendicitis, complicated appendicitis, return to baseline health, readmission, reoperation, unplanned appendectomy, adverse events related to treatment, major and minor complications.
CONCLUSION: An evidence-informed COS based on international consensus, including patients and parents has been developed. This COS is recommended for all future studies evaluating treatment ofsimple appendicitis in children, to reduce heterogeneity between studies and facilitate data synthesis and evidence-based decision-making.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall methods were guided by the Core Outcome Set Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. Initial outcome identification was achieved from focus groups with PWLE employing calibrated methods across two low-middle-income countries (China and Malaysia) and two high-income countries (Spain and the United Kingdom). Following consolidation of the results, the outcomes were incorporated into a three-stage Delphi process with PWLE participation. Finally, consensus between PWLE and DPs was achieved using a mixed live and recorded platform. The experiences of PWLE involvement in the process was also evaluated.
RESULTS: Thirty-one PWLE participated in four focus groups. Thirty-four outcomes were suggested across the focus groups. Evaluation of the focus groups revealed a high level of satisfaction with the engagement process and some new learning. Seventeen PWLE contributed to the first 2 Delphi rounds and 7 to the third round. The final consensus included 17 PWLE (47%) and 19 DPs (53%). Out of the total of 11 final consensus outcomes considered essential by both PWLE and health professionals, 7 (64%) outcomes mapped across to ones that PWLE initially identified, broadening their definition. One outcome (PWLE effort required for treatment and maintenance) was entirely novel.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that engaging PWLE in COS development can be achieved across widely different communities. Furthermore, the process both broadened and enriched overall outcome consensus, yielding important and novel perspectives for health-related research.
DESIGN: Recommendations from a working group of international experts in macular degeneration outcomes registry development and patient advocates, facilitated by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM).
METHODS: Modified Delphi technique, supported by structured teleconferences, followed by online surveys to drive consensus decisions. Potential outcomes were identified through literature review of outcomes collected in existing registries and reported in major clinical trials. Outcomes were refined by the working group and selected based on impact on patients, relationship to good clinical care, and feasibility of measurement in routine clinical practice.
RESULTS: Standardized measurement of the following outcomes is recommended: visual functioning and quality of life (distance visual acuity, mobility and independence, emotional well-being, reading and accessing information); number of treatments; complications of treatment; and disease control. Proposed data collection sources include administrative data, clinical data during routine clinical visits, and patient-reported sources annually. Recording the following clinical characteristics is recommended to enable risk adjustment: age; sex; ethnicity; smoking status; baseline visual acuity in both eyes; type of macular degeneration; presence of geographic atrophy, subretinal fibrosis, or pigment epithelial detachment; previous macular degeneration treatment; ocular comorbidities.
CONCLUSIONS: The recommended minimum outcomes and pragmatic reporting standards should enable standardized, meaningful assessments and comparisons of macular degeneration treatment outcomes. Adoption could accelerate global improvements in standardized data gathering and reporting of patient-centered outcomes. This can facilitate informed decisions by patients and health care providers, plus allow long-term monitoring of aggregate data, ultimately improving understanding of disease progression and treatment responses.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A long list of outcomes will be generated using (1) a systematic review of existing studies on OA-TOF and (2) qualitative research with children (patients), adults (patients) and families involving focus groups, semistructured interviews and self-reported outcome activity packs. A two-phase Delphi survey will then be completed by four key stakeholder groups: (1) patients (paediatric and adult); (2) families; (3) healthcare professionals; and (4) researchers. Phase I will include stakeholders individually rating the importance and relevance of each long-listed outcome using a 9-point Likert scale, with the option to suggest additional outcomes not already included. During phase II, stakeholders will review summarised results from phase I relative to their own initial score and then will be asked to rescore the outcome based on this information. Responses from phase II will be summarised using descriptive statistics and a predefined definition of consensus for inclusion or exclusion of outcomes. Following the Delphi process, stakeholder experts will be invited to review data at a consensus meeting and agree on a COS for OA-TOF.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was sought through the Health Research Authority via the Integrated Research Application System, registration no. 297026. However, approval was deemed not to be required, so study sponsorship and oversight were provided by Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust. The study has been prospectively registered with the COMET Initiative. The study will be published in an open access forum.
METHODS: In this cross sectional study, the Malay version of SAQLI was administered to 82 OSA patients seen at the OSA Clinic, Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia prior to their treatment. Additionally, the patients were asked to complete the Malay version of Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (SF-36). Twenty-three patients completed the Malay version of SAQLI again after 1-2 weeks to assess its reliability.
RESULTS: Initial factor analysis of the 40-item Malay version of SAQLI resulted in four factors with eigenvalues >1. All items had factor loadings >0.5 but one of the factors was unstable with only two items. However, both items were maintained due to their high communalities and the analysis was repeated with a forced three factor solution. Variance accounted by the three factors was 78.17% with 9-18 items per factor. All items had primary loadings over 0.5 although the loadings were inconsistent with the proposed construct. The Cronbach's alpha values were very high for all domains, >0.90. The instrument was able to discriminate between patients with mild or moderate and severe OSA. The Malay version of SAQLI correlated positively with the SF-36. The intraclass correlation coefficients for all domains were >0.90.
CONCLUSIONS: In light of these preliminary observations, we concluded that the Malay version of SAQLI has a high degree of internal consistency and concurrent validity albeit demonstrating a slightly different construct than the original version. The responsiveness of the questionnaire to changes in health-related quality of life following OSA treatment is yet to be determined.
METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental study conducted in two sub-urban communities in Seremban, Malaysia. A total of 268 participants with prediabetes aged between 18 to 65 years old were assigned to either the community-based lifestyle intervention (Co-HELP) (n = 122) or the usual care (n = 146) groups. The Co-HELP program was delivered in partnership with the existing community volunteers to incorporate diet, physical activity, and behaviour modification strategies. Participants in the Co-HELP group received twelve group-based sessions and two individual counselling to reinforce behavioural change. Participants in the usual care group received standard health education from primary health providers in the clinic setting. Primary outcomes were fasting blood glucose, 2-hour plasma glucose, and HbA1C. Secondary outcomes included weight, BMI, waist circumference, total cholesterol, triglyceride, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, physical activity, diet, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL).
RESULTS: An intention-to-treat analysis of between-groups at 12-month (mean difference, 95% CI) revealed that the Co-HELP participants' mean fasting plasma glucose reduced by -0.40 mmol/l (-0.51 to -0.28, p<0.001), 2-hour post glucose by -0.58 mmol/l (-0.91 to -0.24, p<0.001), HbA1C by -0.24% (-0.34 to -0.15, p<0.001), diastolic blood pressure by -2.63 mmHg (-3.79 to -1.48, p<0.01), and waist circumference by -2.44 cm (-4.75 to -0.12, p<0.05) whereas HDL cholesterol increased by 0.12 mmol/l (0.05 to 0.13, p<0.01), compared to the usual care group. Significant improvements were also found in HRQOL for both physical component (PCS) by 6.51 points (5.21 to 7.80, p<0.001) and mental component (MCS) by 7.79 points (6.44 to 9.14, p<0.001). Greater proportion of participants from the Co-HELP group met the clinical recommended target of 5% or more weight loss from the initial weight (24.6% vs 3.4%, p<0.001) and physical activity of >600 METS/min/wk (60.7% vs 32.2%, p<0.001) compared to the usual care group.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that a culturally adapted diabetes prevention program can be implemented in the community setting, with reduction of several diabetes risk factors and improvement of HRQOL. Collaboration with existing community partners demonstrated a promising channel for the wide-scale dissemination of diabetes prevention at the community level. Further studies are required to determine whether similar outcomes could be achieved in communities with different socioeconomic backgrounds and geographical areas.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: IRCT201104106163N1.