25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Three nested randomized controlled trials of peer-only or multiple stakeholder group feedback within Delphi surveys during core outcome and information set development

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Methods for developing a core outcome or information set require involvement of key stakeholders to prioritise many items and achieve agreement as to the core set. The Delphi technique requires participants to rate the importance of items in sequential questionnaires (or rounds) with feedback provided in each subsequent round such that participants are able to consider the views of others. This study examines the impact of receiving feedback from different stakeholder groups, on the subsequent rating of items and the level of agreement between stakeholders.

          Methods

          Randomized controlled trials were nested within the development of three core sets each including a Delphi process with two rounds of questionnaires, completed by patients and health professionals. Participants rated items from 1 (not essential) to 9 (absolutely essential). For round 2, participants were randomized to receive feedback from their peer stakeholder group only (peer) or both stakeholder groups separately (multiple). Decisions as to which items to retain following each round were determined by pre-specified criteria.

          Results

          Whilst type of feedback did not impact on the percentage of items for which a participant subsequently changed their rating, or the magnitude of change, it did impact on items retained at the end of round 2. Each core set contained discordant items retained by one feedback group but not the other (3–22 % discordant items). Consensus between patients and professionals in items to retain was greater amongst those receiving multiple group feedback in each core set (65–82 % agreement for peer-only feedback versus 74–94 % for multiple feedback). In addition, differences in round 2 scores were smaller between stakeholder groups receiving multiple feedback than between those receiving peer group feedback only. Variability in item scores across stakeholders was reduced following any feedback but this reduction was consistently greater amongst the multiple feedback group.

          Conclusions

          In the development of a core outcome or information set, providing feedback within Delphi questionnaires from all stakeholder groups separately may influence the final core set and improve consensus between the groups. Further work is needed to better understand how participants rate and re-rate items within a Delphi process.

          Trial registration

          The three randomized controlled trials reported here were each nested within the development of a core information or outcome set to investigate processes in core outcome and information set development. Outcomes were not health-related and therefore trial registration was not applicable.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1479-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Cognitivie interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey

            Background A COS represents an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative aims to collate and stimulate the development and application of COS, by including data on relevant studies within a publically available internet-based resource. In recent years, there has been an interest in increasing the development of COS. Therefore, this study aimed to provide an update of a previous review, and examine the quality of development of COS. A further aim was to understand the reasons why individuals are searching the COMET database. Methods A multi-faceted search strategy was followed, in order to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. Additionally, a pop up survey was added to the COMET website, to ascertain why people were searching the COMET database. Results Thirty-two reports relating to 29 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. There has been an improvement in the description of the scope of a COS and an increase in the proportion of studies using literature/systematic reviews and the Delphi technique. Clinical experts continue to be the most common group involved in developing COS, however patient and public involvement has increased. The pop-up survey revealed the most common reasons for visiting the COMET website to be thinking about developing a COS and planning a clinical trial. Conclusions This update demonstrates that recent studies appear to have adopted a more structured approach towards COS development and public representation has increased. However, there remains a need for developers to adequately describe details about the scope of COS, and for greater public engagement. The COMET database appears to be a useful resource for both COS developers and users of COS.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The Delphi technique: Past, present, and future prospects — Introduction to the special issue

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Sara.T.Brookes@bristol.ac.uk
                R.Macefield@bristol.ac.uk
                P.R.Williamson@liverpool.ac.uk
                Angus.Mcnair@bristol.ac.uk
                Shelley.Potter@bristol.ac.uk
                Natalie.Blencowe@bristol.ac.uk
                Sean.Strong@bristol.ac.uk
                J.M.Blazeby@bristol.ac.uk
                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                Trials
                BioMed Central (London )
                1745-6215
                17 August 2016
                17 August 2016
                2016
                : 17
                : 409
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS UK
                [2 ]MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, 1st floor Duncan Building, Daulby Street, Liverpool, L69 3GA UK
                [3 ]Division of Surgery, Head and Neck, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Upper Mauldin Street, Bristol, BS2 8HW UK
                Article
                1479
                10.1186/s13063-016-1479-x
                4989325
                27534622
                bf216f40-df59-4552-8a2e-686283bd1858
                © Brookes et al. 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 1 October 2015
                : 11 June 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265, Medical Research Council (GB);
                Award ID: MR/K025643/1
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: National Institute for Health Research (GB) RfPB
                Award ID: PB-PG-0807-14131
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Medicine
                core outcome set,core information set,delphi,consensus,feedback
                Medicine
                core outcome set, core information set, delphi, consensus, feedback

                Comments

                Comment on this article