Engaging Stakeholders and Promoting Uptake of OMERACT Core Outcome Instrument Sets

Increasing uptake through collaboration in the development of core outcome sets: Lessons learned at OMERACT 2023

OBJECTIVE

This manuscript highlights the importance of enhancing the uptake of Core Outcome Sets (COS) by building partnerships with Collaborators and addressing their needs in COS development.

METHODS AND SETTING

This session was structured as a simulation, resembling a format akin to a classic television game show. The moderator posed a series of questions to eight different Collaborator groups who briefly described the importance of COS within their areas of interest. Previous studies examining the uptake of individual core outcomes revealed disparities in uptake rates. The Identified barriers to the uptake of COS include the lack of recommendations for validated instruments for each domain, insufficient involvement of patients and key Collaborator groups in COS development, and a lack of awareness regarding the existence of COS.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis underscores the need for COS development approaches that prioritize the inclusion of patients and diverse Collaborator groups at every stage. While current studies on COS uptake are limited, future research should explore the broader implementation of COS across diverse disease categories and delve into the factors that hinder or facilitate their uptake such as, the importance of COS developers extending their work to recommending domains with well validated instruments. Embracing patient leadership and multifaceted engagement is essential for advancing the relevance and impact of COS in clinical research.

Assessing the uptake of the type 1 diabetes core outcome set in randomized controlled trials: A Cross-Sectional study

AIMS

This study analyzed uptake of the core outcome set (COS) for type 1 diabetes (T1D) and trends in its use before and after its development in December 2017.

METHODS

On June 26, 2023, ClinicalTrials.gov was systematically searched for T1D randomized controlled trials. The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database provided a COS of eight key outcomes for analysis. Included trials were analyzed for COS uptake before and after its release in December 2017 in a masked, duplicate fashion by independent reviewers. We also calculated the proportion of trials that measured the complete COS and assessed the most frequently reported COS outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 3,792 originally screened articles, 144 RCTs were included in the final sample. Following COS publication, its use steadily decreased. Within the COS, HbA1c and severe hypoglycemia were most frequently implemented as endpoints; other recommended outcomes were rarely used in the published trials.

CONCLUSION

Despite the 2017 T1D COS publication, use has decreased over time. This inconsistency negatively influences evidence-based practices and care. Educating researchers on COS and promoting uptake is crucial. Wider COS adoption in T1D trials could enhance clinical research overall. Further study of barriers and facilitators influencing uptake is essential to support consistent use and reporting.

The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) implementation roadmap

BACKGROUND

Core outcome sets (COS) are consensus-driven sets of minimum outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials. COS aim to reduce heterogeneity in outcome measurement and reporting, and selective outcome reporting. Implementing COS into clinical trials is challenging. Guidance to improve COS uptake in dermatology is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a structured practical guide to COS implementation.

METHODS

Members of the Harmonising Outcome Measurement for Eczema (HOME) executive committee developed an expert opinion-based roadmap founded on a combination of a review of the COS implementation literature, the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative resources, input from HOME members and experience in COS development and clinical trials.

RESULTS

The data review and input from HOME members was synthesized into themes, which guided roadmap development: (a) barriers and facilitators to COS uptake based on stakeholder awareness/engagement and COS features; and (b) key implementation science principles (assessment-driven, data-centred, priority-based and context-sensitive). The HOME implementation roadmap follows three stages. Firstly, the COS uptake scope and goals need to be defined. Secondly, during COS development, preparation for future implementation is supported by establishing the COS as a credible evidence-informed consensus by applying robust COS development methodology, engaging multiple stakeholders, fostering sustained and global engagement, emphasizing COS ease of use and universal applicability, and providing recommendations on COS use. Thirdly, incorporating completed COS into primary (trials) and secondary (reviews) research is an iterative process starting with mapping COS uptake and stakeholders' attitudes, followed by designing and carrying out targeted implementation projects. Main themes for implementation projects identified at HOME are stakeholder awareness/engagement; universal applicability for different populations; and improving ease-of-use by reducing administrative and study burden. Formal implementation frameworks can be used to identify implementation barriers/facilitators and to design implementation strategies. The effect of these strategies on uptake should be evaluated and implementation plans adjusted accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

COS can improve the quality and applicability of research and, so, clinical practice but can only succeed if used and reported consistently. The HOME implementation roadmap is an extension of the original HOME roadmap for COS development and provides a pragmatic framework to develop COS implementation strategies.

Implementation of the HOME core outcome set for clinical trials of atopic eczema-barriers and opportunities: the HOME IX meeting report

The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative established a core outcome set (COS) for atopic eczema (AE) clinical trials in 2019. This set encompasses four core outcome domains and corresponding measurement instruments: clinical signs (EASI), patient-reported symptoms (POEM and NRS 11 point for worst itch over the last 24 h), quality of life (DLQI/CDLQI/IDQoLI), and long-term control (Recap or ADCT). Following its roadmap, the HOME initiative is now focused on supporting implementation of the COS. To identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of the COS, and to guide the effort to promote COS uptake, a virtual consensus meeting was held over 2 days (September 25-26, 2021) attended by 55 participants (26 healthcare professionals, 16 methodologists, 5 patients, 4 industry representatives, and 4 students). Implementation themes were identified by a pre-meeting survey distributed to HOME members, presentations, and whole-group discussion. Participants were divided into five multi-professional small groups which ranked their top 3 most important themes, followed by whole-group discussion and anonymous consensus voting (consensus criteria: < 30% disagreement). Three most important implementation themes were identified and agreed upon: (1) awareness and stakeholder engagement, (2) universal applicability of the COS, and (3) ensuring minimum administrative burden. Working groups to address these issues are now a priority for the HOME initiative. The results from this meeting will inform the development of a HOME Implementation Roadmap in an effort to support other COS groups planning for effective implementation of their core sets.

Core Outcome Sets in Child Health: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Developing core outcome sets is essential to ensure that results of clinical trials are comparable and useful. A number of core outcome sets in pediatrics have been published, but a comprehensive in-depth understanding of core outcome sets in this field is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically identify core outcome sets in child health, collate the diseases to which core outcome sets have been applied, describe the methods used for development and stakeholder participation, and evaluate the methodological quality of existing core outcome sets.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched using relevant search terms, such as clinical trials, core outcome, and children, along with relevant websites, such as Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET). Four researchers worked in teams of 2, performed literature screening and data extraction, and evaluated the methodological quality of core outcome sets using the Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development (COS-STAD).

FINDINGS

A total of 77 pediatric core outcome sets were identified, mainly developed by organizations or researchers in Europe, North America, and Australia and mostly from the UK (22 [29%]) and the US (22 [29%]). A total of 77 conditions were addressed; the most frequent International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision category was diseases of the digestive system (14 [18%]). Most of the outcomes in pediatric core outcome sets were unordered (34 [44%]) or presented in custom classifications (29 [38%]). Core outcome sets used 1 or more of 8 development methods; the most frequent combination of methods was systematic review/literature review/scoping review, together with the Delphi approach and consensus for decision-making (10 [14%]). Among the 6 main types of stakeholders, clinical experts were the most frequently involved (74 [100%]), while industry representatives were rarely involved (4 [5%]). Only 6 core outcome sets (8%) met the 12 criteria of COS-STAD.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Future quality of pediatric core outcome sets should be improved based on the standards proposed by the COMET initiative, while core outcome sets methodology and reporting standards should be extended to pediatric populations to help improve the quality of core outcome sets in child health. In addition, the COMET outcome taxonomy should also add items applicable to children.

Radiation therapy for melanoma brain metastases: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Radiation therapy (RT) for melanoma brain metastases, delivered either as whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) or as stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), is an established component of treatment for this condition. However, evidence allowing comparison of the outcomes, advantages and disadvantages of the two RT modalities is scant, with very few randomised controlled trials having been conducted. This has led to considerable uncertainty and inconsistent guideline recommendations. The present systematic review identified 112 studies reporting outcomes for patients with melanoma brain metastases treated with RT. Three were randomised controlled trials but only one was of sufficient size to be considered informative. Most of the evidence was from non-randomised studies, either specific treatment series or disease cohorts. Criteria for determining treatment choice were reported in only 32 studies and the quality of these studies was variable. From the time of diagnosis of brain metastasis, the median survival after WBRT alone was 3.5 months (IQR 2.4-4.0 months) and for SRS alone it was 7.5 months (IQR 6.7-9.0 months). Overall patient survival increased over time (pre-1989 to 2015) but this was not apparent within specific treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These survival estimates provide a baseline for determining the incremental benefits of recently introduced systemic treatments using targeted therapy or immunotherapy for melanoma brain metastases.

Review finds core outcome set uptake in new studies and systematic reviews needs improvement

OBJECTIVE

To review evidence about the uptake of core outcome sets (COS). A COS is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in a specific area of health or health care.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This article provides an analysis of what is known about the uptake of COS in research. Similarities between COS and outcomes recommended by stakeholders in the evidence ecosystem is reviewed, and actions taken by them to facilitate COS uptake described.

RESULTS

COS uptake is low in most research areas. Common facilitators relate to trialist awareness and understanding. Common barriers were not including in the development process all specialties who might use the COS, and the lack of recommendations for how to measure the outcomes. Increasingly, COS developers are considering strategies for promoting uptake earlier in the process, including actions beyond traditional dissemination approaches. Overlap between COS and outcomes in regulatory documents and health technology assessments is good. An increasing number and variety of organisations are recommending COS be considered.

CONCLUSION

We suggest actions for various stakeholders for improving COS uptake. Research is needed to assess the impact of these actions to identify effective evidence-based strategies.

Community first response and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Identifying priorities for data collection, analysis, and use via the nominal group technique

AIM

Community First Response (CFR) is an important component of Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest management in many countries, including Ireland. Reliable, strategic data collection and analysis are required to support the development of CFR. However, data on CFR are currently limited in Ireland and internationally. This research aimed to identify the most important CFR data to record, the most important uses of CFR data, and barriers and facilitators to CFR data collection and use.

METHODS

The Nominal Group Technique structured consensus process was used. An expert panel comprising key stakeholders, including volunteers, clinicians, researchers, policy-makers, and a patient, completed a survey to generate lists of the most important CFR data to record and the most important uses of CFR data. Subsequently, they participated in a consensus meeting to agree the top ten priorities from each list. They also identified barriers and facilitators to CFR data collection and use.

RESULTS

The top ten CFR data items to record included volunteer response time, interventions/activities completed by volunteers, and the mental/physical impact on volunteers. The top ten most important uses of CFR data included providing feedback to volunteers, improving volunteer training, and measuring CFR effectiveness. Barriers included time constraints and limited training. Facilitators included having appropriate software/equipment and collecting minimal data.

CONCLUSION

The results can guide CFR research and inform the development of CFR data collection and analysis policy and practice in Ireland and internationally. Ultimately, improving CFR data collection and use will help to optimise this important intervention and enhance its evidence base.

A survey of knowledge, perceptions and use of core outcome sets among clinical trialists

Background

Core outcome sets (COS) are standardised sets of outcomes, which represent the minimum outcomes that should be measured and reported in clinical trials. COS can enhance comparability across health trials by reducing heterogeneity of outcome measurement and reporting and potentially minimising selective outcome reporting. Examining what researchers involved in trials know and think about COS is essential to increase awareness and promote COS uptake. The aim of this study is therefore to examine clinical trialists’ knowledge, perceptions and experiences of COS.

Methods

An online survey design was used. Participants were clinical trialists, operationalised for the current study as researchers named as the contact person on a trial registered on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Trial repository between 1 January 2019 and 21 July 2020. Survey items assessed clinical trialists’ familiarity with and understanding of COS, along with experiences of COS use and development.

Results

Of 1913 clinical trialists contacted to participate, 62 (3%) completed the survey. Forty (65%) participants were familiar with COS and, of those familiar with COS, 21 (55%) had been involved in a trial that used a COS. Of clinical trialists who used COS in a trial(s), less than half (n = 9, 41%) reported that all COS outcomes were used. The main barriers to using COS are poor knowledge about COS (n = 43, 69%) and difficulties identifying relevant COS (n = 42, 68%). Clinical trialists also reported perceptions of COS as restrictive and often containing too many outcomes. The main enablers to using COS are clear understanding (n = 51, 82%) and perceived importance of COS (n = 44, 71%).

Conclusions

Enhancing clinical trialists’ use of all COS outcomes is needed to reduce outcome heterogeneity and enhance comparability across trial findings. Enhancing awareness of COS importance among researchers and funders is needed to ensure that COS are developed and used by clinical trialists. Education and training may further promote awareness and understanding of COS.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05891-5.

Core Outcome Set Use in Poststroke Aphasia Treatment Research: Examining Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation Using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Purpose A core outcome set (COS; an agreed minimum set of outcomes) was developed to address the heterogeneous measurement of outcomes in poststroke aphasia treatment research. Successful implementation of a COS requires change in individual and collective research behavior. We used the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to understand the factors influencing researchers' use and nonuse of the Research Outcome Measurement in Aphasia (ROMA) COS. Method Aphasia trialists and highly published treatment researchers were identified from the Cochrane review of speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke and through database searches. Participants completed a theory-informed online survey that explored factors influencing COS use. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Results Sixty-four aphasia researchers from 13 countries participated. Most participants (81%) were aware of the ROMA COS, and participants identified more facilitators than barriers to its use. The TDF domain with the highest agreement (i.e., facilitator) was "knowledge" (84% agree/strongly agree). Participants had knowledge of the measures included in the ROMA COS, their associated benefits, and the existing recommendations. The TDF domains with the least agreement (i.e., barriers) were "reinforcement" (34% agree/strongly agree); "social influences" (41% agree/strongly agree); "memory, attention, and decision processes" (45% agree/strongly agree); and "behavioral regulation" (49% agree/strongly agree). Hence, participants identified a lack of external incentives, collegial encouragement, and monitoring systems as barriers to using the ROMA COS. The suitability and availability of individual measurement instruments, as well as burden associated with collecting the COS, were also identified as reasons for nonuse. Conclusions Overall, participants were aware of the benefits of using the ROMA COS and believed that its implementation would improve research quality; however, incentives for routine implementation were reported to be lacking. Findings will guide future revisions of the ROMA COS and the development of theoretically informed implementation strategies. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16528524.

Core Outcome Sets for Medium-Chain Acyl-CoA Dehydrogenase Deficiency and Phenylketonuria

BACKGROUND

Evidence to guide treatment of pediatric medium-chain acyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency and phenylketonuria (PKU) is fragmented because of large variability in outcome selection and measurement. Our goal was to develop core outcome sets (COSs) for these diseases to facilitate meaningful future evidence generation and enhance the capacity to compare and synthesize findings across studies.

METHODS

Parents and/or caregivers, health professionals, and health policy advisors completed a Delphi survey and participated in a consensus workshop to select core outcomes from candidate lists of outcomes for MCAD deficiency and PKU. Delphi participants rated the importance of outcomes on a nine-point scale (1-3: not important, 4-6: important but not critical, 7-9: critical). Candidate outcomes were progressively narrowed down over 3 survey rounds. At the workshop, participants evaluated the remaining candidate outcomes using an adapted nominal technique, open discussion, and voting. After the workshop, we finalized the COSs and recommended measurement instruments for each outcome.

RESULTS

There were 85, 61, and 53 participants across 3 Delphi rounds, respectively. The candidate core outcome lists were narrowed down to 20 outcomes per disease to be discussed at the consensus workshop. Voting by 18 workshop participants led to COSs composed of 8 and 9 outcomes for MCAD deficiency and PKU, respectively, with measurement recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

These are the first known pediatric COSs for MCAD deficiency and PKU. Adoption in future studies will help to ensure best use of limited research resources to ultimately improve care for children with these rare diseases.

Pain assessment in clinical trials: a narrative review

Pain is a symptom measured in many clinical trials. For pain as an outcome domain, trialists need to choose adequate outcome measure(s), as there are myriad outcome measures for pain to choose from. To ensure consistency and uniformity in clinical trials and systematic reviews, core outcome sets (COS) have been defined; COS includes a predefined minimal list of core outcomes that should be measured within a trial, to ensure their consistency and comparability. COS is defined via consensus procedure, which includes relevant stakeholders such as experts from a specific field and patients. Along with outcomes, outcome measures for each outcome need to be defined to make sure that the outcomes will be measured consistently and uniformly. Hereby we reviewed studies that have examined use of recommended core outcome domains and outcome measures in clinical trials that would be expected to measure pain. Despite the existence of COS and defined core outcome measures (COMs), multiple studies have shown that these are not necessarily used in clinical trials, or in the relevant systematic reviews, which further increases heterogeneity of existing evidence, hinders evidence synthesis and trial comparability, and assessment of comparative effectiveness of interventions. Trialists are encouraged to use COS and COMs when designing clinical trials. Research community is encouraged to design interventions that will help with identifying barriers for using COS and COMs and interventions to foster their uptake. Use of consistent pain outcomes and pain outcome measures is in the interest of patients, research community, healthcare workers and decision-makers. For clinical conditions for which there are no COS and COMs, efforts to design them would be beneficial.

Practical guidance for engaging patients in health research, treatment guidelines and regulatory processes: results of an expert group meeting organized by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)

There is increasing emphasis on patient-centred research to support the development, approval and reimbursement of health interventions that best meet patients' needs. However, there is currently little guidance on how meaningful patient engagement may be achieved. An expert working group, representing a wide range of stakeholders and disciplines, was convened by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through a structured, collaborative process the group generated practical guidance to facilitate optimal patient engagement in clinical development and regulatory decisions. Patient engagement is a relational process. The principles outlined in this report were based on lessons learned through applied experience and on an extensive dialogue among the expert participants. This practice guidance forms a starting point from which tailoring of the approach to suit different chronic diseases may be undertaken.

The uptake of the hip fracture core outcome set: analysis of 20 years of hip fracture trials

BACKGROUND

clinical trials test the effectiveness or efficacy of treatments. It is important that researchers evaluate interventions with the most meaningful outcome measures. The 2014 hip fracture core outcome set recommended that mortality, mobility, pain, activities of daily living and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) should be assessed in all trials of patient with hip fracture. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the uptake of these recommendation.

METHODS

all trials registered from 1997 to 2018 recruiting participants following hip fracture were identified from the ClinicalTrials.gov trials registry. The frequency of each core domain adopted annually were assessed.

RESULTS

311 trials were identified and analysed. On analysing trial registries for years which presented a minimum of 10 registrations, full core outcome set adoption ranged from 0% (2017; 2018) to 24% (2009). Mortality and mobility were the most consistently reported domains (mortality: 27% (2017) to 56% (2011); mobility: 36% (2015) to 60% (2004)). In contrast, pain and HRQOL were least reported (pain: 14% (2017) to 61% (2015); HRQOL: 10% (2010) to 11% (2008)). There was no clear change in core outcome domain set adoption following the publication of Hayward et al.'s (2014) core outcome set.

CONCLUSIONS

there has been limited adoption of the hip fracture core outcome set from its publication in 2014. Further consideration to improve implementation is required to improved uptake.

Core Domain Set Selection According to OMERACT Filter 2.1: The OMERACT Methodology

Objective.

To describe the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 methodology for core domain set selection.

Methods.

The “OMERACT Way for Core Domain Set selection” framework consists of 3 stages: first, generating candidate domains through literature reviews and qualitative work, then a process of consensus to obtain agreement from those involved, and finally formal voting on the OMERACT Onion. The OMERACT Onion describes the placement of domains in layers/circles: mandatory in all trials/mandatory in specific circumstances (inner circle); important but optional (middle circle); or research agenda (outer circle). Five OMERACT working groups presented their core domain sets for endorsement by the OMERACT community. Tools including a workbook and whiteboard video were created to assist the process. The methods workshop at OMERACT 2018 introduced participants to this framework.

Results.

The 5 OMERACT working groups achieved consensus on their proposed core domain sets. After the Methodology Workshop training exercise at OMERACT 2018, over 90% of participants voted that they were confident that they understood the process of core domain set selection.

Conclusion.

The methods described in this paper were successfully used by the 5 working groups voting on domains at the OMERACT 2018 meeting, demonstrating the feasibility of the process. In addition, participants at OMERACT 2018 expressed increased confidence and understanding of the core domain set selection process after the training exercise. This methodology will continue to evolve, and we will use innovative technology such as whiteboard videos as a key part of our dissemination and implementation strategy for new methods.

Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items: the COS-STAP Statement

BACKGROUND

Several hundred core outcome set (COS) projects have been systematically identified to date which, if adopted, ensure that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. The uptake of a COS by COS users will depend in part on the transparency and robustness of the methods used in the COS development study, which would be increased by the use of a standardised protocol. This article describes the development of the COS-STAP (Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items) Statement for the content of a COS development study protocol.

METHODS

The COS-STAP Statement was developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's methodological framework for guideline development. This included an initial item generation stage, a two-round Delphi survey involving more than 150 participants representing three stakeholder groups (COS developers, journal editors and patient and public involvement researchers interested in COS development), followed by a consensus meeting with eight voting participants.

RESULTS

The COS-STAP Statement consists of a checklist of 13 items considered essential documentation in a protocol, outlining the scope of the COS, stakeholder involvement, COS development plans and consensus processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Journal editors and peer reviewers can use the guidance to assess the completeness of a COS development study protocol submitted for publication. By providing guidance for key content, the COS-STAP Statement will enhance the drafting of high-quality protocols and determine how the COS development study will be carried out.

Implementing core outcomes in kidney disease: report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) implementation workshop

There are an estimated 14,000 randomized trials published in chronic kidney disease. The most frequently reported outcomes are biochemical endpoints, rather than clinical and patient-reported outcomes including cardiovascular disease, mortality, and quality of life. While many trials have focused on optimizing kidney health, the heterogeneity and uncertain relevance of outcomes reported across trials may limit their policy and practice impact. The international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) Initiative was formed to identify core outcomes that are critically important to patients and health professionals, to be reported consistently across trials. We convened a SONG Implementation Workshop to discuss the implementation of core outcomes. Eighty-two patients/caregivers and health professionals participated in plenary and breakout discussions. In this report, we summarize the findings of the workshop in two main themes: socializing the concept of core outcomes, and demonstrating feasibility and usability. We outline implementation strategies and pathways to be established through partnership with stakeholders, which may bolster acceptance and reporting of core outcomes in trials, and encourage their use by end-users such as guideline producers and policymakers to help improve patient-important outcomes.

Clinicians' and researchers' perspectives on establishing and implementing core outcomes in haemodialysis: semistructured interview study

OBJECTIVES

To describe the perspectives of clinicians and researchers on identifying, establishing and implementing core outcomes in haemodialysis and their expected impact.

DESIGN

Face-to-face, semistructured interviews; thematic analysis.

STETTING

Twenty-seven centres across nine countries.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty-eight nephrologists (42 (72%) who were also triallists).

RESULTS

We identified six themes: reflecting direct patient relevance and impact (survival as the primary goal of dialysis, enabling well-being and functioning, severe consequences of comorbidities and complications, indicators of treatment success, universal relevance, stakeholder consensus); amenable and responsive to interventions (realistic and possible to intervene on, differentiating between treatments); reflective of economic burden on healthcare; feasibility of implementation (clarity and consistency in definition, easily measurable, requiring minimal resources, creating a cultural shift, aversion to intensifying bureaucracy, allowing justifiable exceptions); authoritative inducement and directive (endorsement for legitimacy, necessity of buy-in from dialysis providers, incentivising uptake); instituting patient-centredness (explicitly addressing patient-important outcomes, reciprocating trial participation, improving comparability of interventions for decision-making, driving quality improvement and compelling a focus on quality of life).

CONCLUSIONS

Nephrologists emphasised that core outcomes should be relevant to patients, amenable to change, feasible to implement and supported by stakeholder organisations. They expected core outcomes would improve patient-centred care and outcomes.