Consensus Building in OMERACT: Recommendations for Use of the Delphi for Core Outcome Set Development

Transgender health objectives of training for adult Endocrinology and Metabolism programs: Outcomes of a modified-Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Transgender people encounter significant barriers when seeking timely, high-quality healthcare, resulting in unmet medical needs with increased rates of diabetes, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and HIV. The paucity of postgraduate medical education to invest in standardization of transgender health training sustains these barriers, leaving physicians feeling unprepared and averse to provide transgender health care. Closing this education gap and improving transgender healthcare necessitates the development of consensus-built transgender health objectives of training (THOOT), particularly in Adult Endocrinology and Metabolism Residency programs.

METHODS

We conducted a two-round modified-Delphi process involving a nationally representative panel of experts, including Adult Endocrinology and Metabolism program directors, physician content experts, residents, and transgender community members, to identify THOOT for inclusion in Canadian Endocrinology and Metabolism Residency programs. Participants used a 5-point Likert scale to assess THOOT importance for curricular inclusion, with opportunities for written feedback. Data was collected through Qualtrics and analyzed after each round.

FINDINGS

In the first Delphi round, panelists reviewed and rated 81 literature extracted THOOT, achieving consensus on all objectives. Following panelists' feedback, 5 THOOT were added, 9 removed, 34 consolidated into 12 objectives, and 47 were rephrased or retained. In the second Delphi round, panelists assessed 55 THOOT. Consensus was established for 8 THOOT. Program directors' post-Delphi feedback further consolidated objectives to arrive at 4 THOOT for curriculum inclusion.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first time a consensus-based approach has been used to establish THOOT for any subspecialty postgraduate medicine program across Canada or the United States. Our results lay the foundation towards health equity and social justice in transgender health medical education, offering a blueprint for future innovations.

Development of a value-based healthcare burns core set for adult burn care

BACKGROUND

Value-based healthcare (VBHC) is increasingly implemented in healthcare worldwide. Transparent measurement of the outcomes most important and relevant to patients is essential in VBHC, which is supported by a core set of most important quality indicators and outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a VBHC-burns core set for adult burn patients.

METHODS

A three-round modified national Delphi study, including 44 outcomes and 24 quality indicators, was conducted to reach consensus among Dutch patients, burn care professionals and researchers. Items were rated on a nine-point Likert scale and selected if ≥ 70% in each group considered an item 'important'. Subsequently, instruments quantifying selected outcomes were identified based on a literature review and were chosen in a consensus meeting using recommendations from the Dutch consensus-based standard set and the Dutch Centre of Expertise on Health Disparities. Time assessment points were chosen to reflect the burn care and patient recovery process. Finally, the initial core set was evaluated in practice, leading to the adapted VBHC-burns core set.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients, 63 burn care professionals and 23 researchers participated. Ten outcomes and four quality indicators were selected in the Delphi study, including the outcomes pain, wound healing, physical activity, self-care, independence, return to work, depression, itching, scar flexibility and return to school. Quality indicators included shared decision-making (SDM), the number of patients receiving aftercare, determination of burn depth, and assessment of active range of motion. After evaluation of its use in clinical practice, the core set included all items except SDM, which are assessed by 9 patient-reported outcome instruments or measured in clinical care. Assessment time points included are at discharge, 2 weeks, 3 months, 12 months after discharge and annually afterwards.

CONCLUSION

A VBHC-burns core set was developed, consisting of outcomes and quality indicators that are important to burn patients and burn care professionals. The VBHC-burns core set is now systemically monitored and analysed in Dutch burn care to improve care and patient relevant outcomes. As improving burn care and patient relevant outcomes is important worldwide, the developed VBHC-burns core set could be inspiring for other countries.

Consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the OMERACT Core Outcome Set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials

OBJECTIVE

To gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials evaluating shared decision making (SDM) interventions.

METHODS

Following the OMERACT Handbook methods, our Working Group (WG), comprised of 90 members, including 17 patient research partners (PRPs) and 73 clinicians and researchers, had six virtual meetings in addition to email exchanges to develop draft definitions and descriptions. The WG then conducted an international survey of its members to gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions. Finally, the WG members had virtual meetings and e-mail exchanges to review survey results and finalize names, definitions and descriptions of the domains.

RESULTS

WG members contributed to developing the definitions. Fifty-two members representing four continents and 13 countries completed the survey, including 15 PRPs, 33 clinicians and 37 researchers. PRPs and clinicians/researchers agreed with all definitions and descriptions with agreements ranging from 87% to 100%. Respondents suggested wording changes to the names, definitions and descriptions to better reflect the domains. Discussions led to further simplification and clarification to address common questions/concerns about the domains.

CONCLUSION

Our WG reached consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. This step is crucial to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The current study provides consensus-based definitions and descriptions for the domains of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions from patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers. This is a crucial step to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set for trials of SDM interventions.

Core outcome sets for trials of interventions to prevent and to treat multimorbidity in low- and middle-income countries: the COSMOS study

Introduction

The burden of multimorbidity is recognised increasingly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), creating a strong emphasis on the need for effective evidence-based interventions. A core outcome set (COS) appropriate for the study of multimorbidity in LMIC contexts does not presently exist. This is required to standardise reporting and contribute to a consistent and cohesive evidence-base to inform policy and practice. We describe the development of two COS for intervention trials aimed at the prevention and treatment of multimorbidity in LMICs.

Methods

To generate a comprehensive list of relevant prevention and treatment outcomes, we conducted a systematic review and qualitative interviews with people with multimorbidity and their caregivers living in LMICs. We then used a modified two-round Delphi process to identify outcomes most important to four stakeholder groups with representation from 33 countries (people with multimorbidity/caregivers, multimorbidity researchers, healthcare professionals, and policy makers). Consensus meetings were used to reach agreement on the two final COS. Registration: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1580.

Results

The systematic review and qualitative interviews identified 24 outcomes for prevention and 49 for treatment of multimorbidity. An additional 12 prevention, and six treatment outcomes were added from Delphi round one. Delphi round two surveys were completed by 95 of 132 round one participants (72.0%) for prevention and 95 of 133 (71.4%) participants for treatment outcomes. Consensus meetings agreed four outcomes for the prevention COS: (1) Adverse events, (2) Development of new comorbidity, (3) Health risk behaviour, and (4) Quality of life; and four for the treatment COS: (1) Adherence to treatment, (2) Adverse events, (3) Out-of-pocket expenditure, and (4) Quality of life.

Conclusion

Following established guidelines, we developed two COS for trials of interventions for multimorbidity prevention and treatment, specific to LMIC contexts. We recommend their inclusion in future trials to meaningfully advance the field of multimorbidity research in LMICs.

Vaginal birth core information set: study protocol for a Delphi study to achieve a consensus on a 'core information set' for vaginal birth

INTRODUCTION

Studies have shown that women are often underinformed about potential benefits and risks of vaginal birth. This is in contrast to other modes of birth, such as caesarean birth, for which the risks/benefits are often conveyed prior to undergoing the procedure. A core information set (CIS) is an agreed set of information points that should be discussed with all patients prior to undergoing a procedure or intervention. This CIS could improve the quality of information given regarding mode of birth options, as women will be given information prioritised by patients and stakeholders regarding vaginal birth, empowering them to make informed decisions about their birth. We aim to describe the protocol for the development of this vaginal birth CIS.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will develop the CIS by: (1) Compiling a 'long-list' of information points about vaginal birth by: undertaking a scoping review of studies and patient information leaflets; interviews with antenatal/postnatal women, an online survey of stakeholders. (2) Collating the 'long-list' of information points and developing the Delphi survey. Think-aloud interviews will refine the survey. (3) Conducting a two-round Delphi survey. 200 stakeholder participants will be recruited. Items rated critically important by ≥80% of participants in one stakeholder group, or with no consensus, will be carried through to a stakeholder consensus meeting to decide the final CIS. Planned start date is 1 June 2022. Planned end date is 31 August 2023.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project has been given a favourable ethics opinion by the University of Bristol Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 10530). Approval from the ethics committee will be sought for any protocol amendments, and the principal investigator will be responsible for these changes. Findings will be presented at relevant conferences and published in a high-impact journal. We will disseminate the CIS, via Policy Bristol, to clinical policy and guideline developers.

A Foundation for Patient-Centered Core Impact Sets: Key Learnings from Past and Existing Approaches

Despite growing commitment to patient centricity, challenges persist in consistently identifying the impacts of disease and/or treatment that patients report as most important to them, especially across myriad potential downstream uses. Patient-centered core impact sets (PC-CIS), disease-specific lists of impacts that patients report as most important, are proposed as a solution. But, PC-CIS is a new concept, currently in the pilot stage with patient advocacy groups. We conducted an environmental scan to explore PC-CIS conceptual overlap with past/existing efforts [e.g., core outcome sets (COS)] and to inform general feasibility for further development and operationalization. With guidance and advice from an expert advisory committee, we conducted a search of the literature and relevant websites. Identified resources were reviewed for alignment with the PC-CIS definition, and key insights were gleaned. We identified 51 existing resources and five key insights: (1) no existing efforts identified meet the definition of PC-CIS as we have specified it in terms of patient centricity, (2) existing COS-development efforts are a valuable source of foundational resources for PC-CIS, (3) existing health-outcome taxonomies can be augmented with patient-prioritized impacts to create a comprehensive impact taxonomy, (4) current approaches/methods can inadvertently exclude patient priorities from core lists/sets and will need to be modified to protect the patient voice, and (5) there is need for clarity and transparency on how patients were engaged in individual past/existing efforts. PC-CIS is conceptually unique from past/existing efforts in its explicit emphasis on patient leadership and being patient driven. However, PC-CIS development can leverage many resources from the past/existing related work.

Palliative Care Early in the Care Continuum among Patients with Serious Respiratory Illness: An Official ATS/AAHPM/HPNA/SWHPN Policy Statement

Background: Patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers suffer considerable burdens, and palliative care is a fundamental right for anyone who needs it. However, the overwhelming majority of patients do not receive timely palliative care before the end of life, despite robust evidence for improved outcomes. Goals: This policy statement by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and partnering societies advocates for improved integration of high-quality palliative care early in the care continuum for patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers and provides clinicians and policymakers with a framework to accomplish this. Methods: An international and interprofessional expert committee, including patients and caregivers, achieved consensus across a diverse working group representing pulmonary-critical care, palliative care, bioethics, health law and policy, geriatrics, nursing, physiotherapy, social work, pharmacy, patient advocacy, psychology, and sociology. Results: The committee developed fundamental values, principles, and policy recommendations for integrating palliative care in serious respiratory illness care across seven domains: 1) delivery models, 2) comprehensive symptom assessment and management, 3) advance care planning and goals of care discussions, 4) caregiver support, 5) health disparities, 6) mass casualty events and emergency preparedness, and 7) research priorities. The recommendations encourage timely integration of palliative care, promote innovative primary and secondary or specialist palliative care delivery models, and advocate for research and policy initiatives to improve the availability and quality of palliative care for patients and their caregivers. Conclusions: This multisociety policy statement establishes a framework for early palliative care in serious respiratory illness and provides guidance for pulmonary-critical care clinicians and policymakers for its proactive integration.

Existing guidance on reporting of consensus methodology: a systematic review to inform ACCORD guideline development

OBJECTIVE

To identify evidence on the reporting quality of consensus methodology and to select potential checklist items for the ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) project to develop a consensus reporting guideline.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Academic Search Premier and PsycINFO from inception until 7 January 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies, reviews and published guidance addressing the reporting quality of consensus methodology for improvement of health outcomes in biomedicine or clinical practice. Reports of studies using or describing consensus methods but not commenting on their reporting quality were excluded. No language restrictions were applied.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Screening and data extraction of eligible studies were carried out independently by two authors. Reporting quality items addressed by the studies were synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were included: five systematic reviews, four narrative reviews, three research papers, three conference abstracts, two research guidance papers and one protocol. The majority of studies indicated that the quality of reporting of consensus methodology could be improved. Commonly addressed items were: consensus panel composition; definition of consensus and the threshold for achieving consensus. Items least addressed were: public patient involvement (PPI); the role of the steering committee, chair, cochair; conflict of interest of panellists and funding. Data extracted from included studies revealed additional items that were not captured in the data extraction form such as justification of deviation from the protocol or incentives to encourage panellist response.

CONCLUSION

The results of this systematic review confirmed the need for a reporting checklist for consensus methodology and provided a range of potential checklist items to report. The next step in the ACCORD project builds on this systematic review and focuses on reaching consensus on these items to develop the reporting guideline.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/2rzm9.

Protocol for the development of a core domain set for individuals with ankle osteoarthritis

Background

Ankle osteoarthritis (OA) is a debilitating health condition that is increasing in prevalence. Currently, there are no evidence-based guidelines for managing ankle OA. One of the current challenges to establishing guidelines is the lack of a widely agreed-upon set of outcome measures that are consistently used in ankle OA research. Without a set of agreed-upon outcome measures, it is difficult to synthesise clinical trial outcomes through meta-analysis—an essential element of evidence-informed practice. In order to develop an appropriate set of outcome measures for ankle OA, it is important first to develop a core domain set. In this protocol, we describe the methodological approach that we will use to develop such a core domain set for ankle OA.

Methods

We established an international steering committee to guide the development of a core domain set for ankle OA. The core domain set development will follow a multi-staged approach consisting of three phases, involving participation by patients and clinicians/healthcare professionals. In phase 1, a list of candidate domains will be gleaned from (a) a scoping review of outcome measures used in ankle OA research, (b) qualitative interviews with individuals with ankle OA, and (c) qualitative interviews with healthcare professionals with expertise in ankle OA. In phase 2, the steering committee will review and generate a list of candidate domains from those gleaned in phase 1. In phase 3, this list of candidate domains will be considered in a Delphi process to reach a consensus on a core domain set. We anticipated this will involve 3 rounds of surveys.

Conclusion

This protocol describes the methods that will be used to develop a core domain set of health-related aspects for ankle OA. Importantly, it will include both healthcare professional and patient involvement. This is a prerequisite step to developing a core outcome set for ankle OA that should be reported in all clinical trials for ankle OA. The findings will be widely disseminated across peer-refereed publication(s) and national and international conferences, as well as via relevant professional societies, patient support group organisations, and social media platforms.

Project registration

This project is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database on 17 March 2021. https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1837.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06692-0.

An International Delphi Exercise to Identify Items of Importance for Measuring Response to Treatment in ANCA-Associated Vasculitis

OBJECTIVE

ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) is characterized by fluctuating levels of disease activity, but no formal criteria exist to measure response to treatment. This Delphi exercise aimed to reach consensus about which measures are considered by patients and physicians to be most important when assessing response to treatment in clinical trials of AAV.

METHODS

An international 3-round online Delphi exercise was conducted. Survey participants included patients with AAV and physicians with expertise in AAV. Survey participants were asked to rate (on a scale of 1-9) the importance of each item when assessing response to treatment in AAV. Items scored 7-9 by ≥70% participants were considered highly important.

RESULTS

89 patients and 176 physicians completed three rounds of the Delphi exercise. The most highly rated items of response involved disease activity [extent of organ involvement, physician global assessment], mortality [survival], and patient-reported outcomes [patient global assessment and health-related quality of life measures]. Achievement of specific BVAS scores were highly rated only by physicians. Items highly rated only by patients included laboratory measures [changes on urinalysis and acute phase reactants], pain, and fatigue. Additional items related to damage and adverse events were highly rated by both groups.

CONCLUSION

There is consensus between patients and physicians on many items considered important to measure when assessing response to treatment in AAV. There are some items considered important by only patients or only physicians. These data will inform the next steps in the development criteria of response to treatment in AAV.

Summarizing current refractory disease definitions in rheumatoid arthritis and polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis: systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To identify how refractory disease (or relevant terminology variations) in RA and polyarticular JIA (polyJIA) is defined and establish the key components of such definitions.

METHODS

Searches were undertaken of English-language articles within six medical databases, including manual searching, from January 1998 to March 2020 (PROSPERO: CRD42019127142). Articles were included if they incorporated a definition of refractory disease, or non-response, in RA/polyJIA, with clear components to the description. Qualitative content analysis was undertaken to describe refractory disease in RA/polyJIA and classify each component within each definition.

RESULTS

Of 6251 studies screened, 646 met the inclusion criteria; 581 of these applied non-response criteria while 65 provided refractory disease definitions/descriptions. From the non-response studies, 39 different components included various disease activity measures, emphasizing persistent disease activity and symptoms, despite treatment with one or more biologic DMARD (bDMARD). From papers with clear definitions for refractory disease, 41 components were identified and categorized into three key themes: resistance to multiple drugs with different mechanisms of action, typically two or more bDMARDs; persistence of symptoms and disease activity; and other contributing factors. The most common term used was 'refractory' (80%), while only 16.9% reported explicitly how their definition was generated (e.g. clinical experience or statistical methods).

CONCLUSION

Refractory disease is defined as resistance to multiple drugs with different mechanisms of action by persistence of physical symptoms and high disease activity, including contributing factors. A clear unifying definition needs implementing, as the plethora of different definitions makes study comparisons and appropriate identification of patients difficult.

Improving benefit-harm assessment of glucocorticoid therapy incorporating the patient perspective: The OMERACT glucocorticoid core domain set

OBJECTIVE

Our primary objective was to develop an Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set to capture the impact of glucocorticoids (GC), both positive and negative, on patients with Rheumatic conditions.

METHODS

The OMERACT Filter 2.1 was used to guide core domain selection. Systematic literature reviews, qualitative studies and quantitative surveys were conducted by the OMERACT GC Impact working group to identify candidate domains for a core domain set. A summary of prior work and Delphi exercise were presented at the OMERACT 2020 virtual GC workshop. A proposed GC Impact core domain set derived from this work was presented for discussion in facilitated breakout groups. Participants voted on the proposed GC Impact core domain set.

RESULTS

113 people, including 23 patient research partners, participated in two virtual workshops conducted at different times on the same day. The proposed mandatory domains to be evaluated in clinical trials involving GCs were: infection, bone fragility, hypertension, diabetes, weight, fatigue, mood disturbance and death. In addition, collection of disease specific outcomes was included in the core domain set as "mandatory in specific circumstances". The proposed core domain set was endorsed by 100% (23/23) of the patient research partners and 92% (83/90) of the remaining participants, including clinicians, researchers and industry stakeholders.

CONCLUSION

A GC Impact core domain set was endorsed at the OMERACT 2020 virtual workshop. The OMERACT GC Impact working group will now progress to identify, develop and validate measurement tools to best address these domains in clinical trials.

OMERACT consensus-based operational definition of contextual factors in rheumatology clinical trials: A mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

To develop an operational definition of contextual factors (CF) [1].

METHODS

Based on previously conducted interviews, we presented three CF types in a Delphi survey; Effect Modifying -, Outcome Influencing - and Measurement Affecting CFs. Subsequently, a virtual Special Interest Group (SIG) session was held for in depth discussion of Effect Modifying CFs.

RESULTS

Of 161 Delphi participants, 129 (80%) completed both rounds. After two rounds, we reached consensus (≥70% agreeing) for all but two statements. The 45 SIG participants were broadly supportive.

CONCLUSION

Through consensus we developed an operational definition of CFs, which was well received by OMERACT members.

Consensus terminology for preclinical phases of psoriatic arthritis for use in research studies: results from a Delphi consensus study

The concept of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) prevention is gaining increased interest owing to the physical limitation, poor quality of life and low remission rates that are achieved with current therapies for PsA. The psoriasis-to-PsA transition offers a unique opportunity to identify individuals at increased risk of developing PsA and to implement preventive strategies. However, identifying individuals at increased risk of developing PsA is challenging as there is no consensus on how this population should be defined. This Consensus Statement puts forward recommended terminology from the Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Clinics Multicenter Advancement Network (PPACMAN) for defining specific subgroups of individuals during the preclinical and early clinical phases of PsA to be used in research studies. Following a three-round Delphi process, consensus was reached for three terms and definitions: 'increased risk for PsA', 'psoriasis with asymptomatic synovio-entheseal imaging abnormalities' and 'psoriasis with musculoskeletal symptoms not explained by other diagnosis'. These terms and their definitions will enable improved identification and standardization of study populations in clinical research. In the future, as increasing evidence emerges regarding the molecular and clinical features of the psoriasis-to-PsA continuum, these terms and definitions will be further refined and updated.

Improving design choices in Delphi studies in medicine: the case of an exemplary physician multi-round panel study with 100% response

Background

A proper application of the Delphi technique is essential for obtaining valid research results. Medical researchers regularly use Delphi studies, but reports often lack detailed information on methodology and controlled feedback: in the medical literature, papers focusing on Delphi methodology issues are rare. Since the introduction of electronic surveys, details on response times remain scarce. We aim to bridge a number of gaps by providing a real world example covering methodological choices and response times in detail.

Methods

The objective of our e(lectronic)-Delphi study was to determine minimum standards for emergency departments (EDs) in the Netherlands. We opted for a two-part design with explicit decision rules. Part 1 focused on gathering and defining items; Part 2 addressed the main research question using an online survey tool. A two-person consensus rule was applied throughout: even after consensus on specific items was reached, panellists could reopen the discussion as long as at least two panellists argued similarly. Per round, the number of reminders sent and individual response times were noted. We also recorded the methodological considerations and evaluations made by the research team prior to as well as during the study.

Results

The study was performed in eight rounds and an additional confirmation round. Response rates were 100% in all rounds, resulting in 100% consensus in Part 1 and 96% consensus in Part 2. Our decision rules proved to be stable and easily applicable. Items with negative advice required more rounds before consensus was reached. Response delays were mostly due to late starts, but once panellists started, they nearly always finished the questionnaire on the same day. Reminders often yielded rapid responses. Intra-individual differences in response time were large, but quick responders remained quick.

Conclusions

We advise those considering Delphi study to follow the CREDES guideline, consider a two-part design, invest in personal commitment of the panellists, set clear decision rules, use a consistent lay-out and send out your reminders early. Adopting this overall approach may assist researchers in future Delphi studies and may help to improve the quality of Delphi designs in terms of improved rigor and higher response rates.

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.