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.

Motivations for investigating health inequities in observational epidemiology: a content analysis of 320 studies

OBJECTIVES

To enhance equity in clinical and epidemiological research, it is crucial to understand researcher motivations for conducting equity-relevant studies. Therefore, we evaluated author motivations in a randomly selected sample of equity-relevant observational studies published during the COVID-19 pandemic.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched MEDLINE for studies from 2020 to 2022, resulting in 16,828 references. We randomly selected 320 studies purposefully sampled across income setting (high vs low-middle-income), COVID-19 topic (vs non-COVID-19), and focus on populations experiencing inequities. Of those, 206 explicitly mentioned motivations which we analyzed thematically. We used discourse analysis to investigate the reasons behind emerging motivations.

RESULTS

We identified the following motivations: (1) examining health disparities, (2) tackling social determinants to improve access, and (3) addressing knowledge gaps in health equity. Discourse analysis showed motivations stem from commitments to social justice and recognizing the importance of highlighting it in research. Other discourses included aspiring to improve health-care efficiency, wanting to understand cause-effect relationships, and seeking to contribute to an equitable evidence base.

CONCLUSION

Understanding researchers' motivations for assessing health equity can aid in developing guidance that tailors to their needs. We will consider these motivations in developing and sharing equity guidance to better meet researchers' needs.

Reporting of equity in observational epidemiology: A methodological review

Background

Observational studies can inform how we understand and address persisting health inequities through the collection, reporting and analysis of health equity factors. However, the extent to which the analysis and reporting of equity-relevant aspects in observational research are generally unknown. Thus, we aimed to systematically evaluate how equity-relevant observational studies reported equity considerations in the study design and analyses.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE for health equity-relevant observational studies from January 2020 to March 2022, resulting in 16 828 articles. We randomly selected 320 studies, ensuring a balance in focus on populations experiencing inequities, country income settings, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) topic. We extracted information on study design and analysis methods.

Results

The bulk of the studies were conducted in North America (n = 95, 30%), followed by Europe and Central Asia (n = 55, 17%). Half of the studies (n = 171, 53%) addressed general health and well-being, while 49 (15%) focused on mental health conditions. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 220, 69%) were cross-sectional. Eight (3%) engaged with populations experiencing inequities, while 22 (29%) adapted recruitment methods to reach these populations. Further, 67 studies (21%) examined interaction effects primarily related to race or ethnicity (48%). Two-thirds of the studies (72%) adjusted for characteristics associated with inequities, and 18 studies (6%) used flow diagrams to depict how populations experiencing inequities progressed throughout the studies.

Conclusions

Despite over 80% of the equity-focused observational studies providing a rationale for a focus on health equity, reporting of study design features relevant to health equity ranged from 0-95%, with over half of the items reported by less than one-quarter of studies. This methodological study is a baseline assessment to inform the development of an equity-focussed reporting guideline for observational studies as an extension of the well-known Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline.

Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline

BACKGROUND

Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension.

METHODS

We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels.

DISCUSSION

Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

Guidance relevant to the reporting of health equity in observational research: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Health inequities are defined as unfair and avoidable differences in health between groups within a population. Most health research is conducted through observational studies, which are able to offer real-world insights about etiology, healthcare policy/programme effectiveness and the impacts of socioeconomic factors. However, most published reports of observational studies do not address how their findings relate to health equity. Our team seeks to develop equity-relevant reporting guidance as an extension of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. This scoping review will inform the development of candidate items for the STROBE-Equity extension. We will operationalise equity-seeking populations using the PROGRESS-Plus framework of sociodemographic factors. As part of a parallel stream of the STROBE-Equity project, the relevance of candidate guideline items to Indigenous research will be led by Indigenous coinvestigators on the team.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute method for conducting scoping reviews. We will evaluate the extent to which the identified guidance supports or refutes our preliminary candidate items for reporting equity in observational studies. These candidate items were developed based on items from equity-reporting guidelines for randomised trials and systematic reviews, developed by members of this team. We will consult with our knowledge users, patients/public partners and Indigenous research steering committee to invite suggestions for relevant guidance documents and interpretation of findings. If the identified guidance suggests the need for additional candidate items, they will be developed through inductive thematic analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We will follow a principled approach that promotes ethical codevelopment with our community partners, based on principles of cultural safety, authentic partnerships, addressing colonial structures in knowledge production and the shared ownership, interpretation, and dissemination of research. All products of this research will be published as open access.

Development of an extension of the OMERACT Summary of Measurement Properties table to capture equity considerations: SOMP-Equity

OBJECTIVE

To develop an equity extension of the OMERACT Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) Table, SOMP Equity to describe whether a patient reported outcome measure (PROM) works well among patients of diverse languages and cultures, education levels, and other population characteristics.

METHODS

We used the PROGRESS-Plus framework to categorize equity characteristics assessed in trials of PROM. PROGRESS refers to Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social Capital, while the 'plus' captures additional characteristics, such as age. We pilot tested our SOMP Equity Extension using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) as a prototypical PROM.

RESULTS

The SOMP Equity Extension retains the same columns as the original OMERACT SOMP (domain match, feasibility, construct validity, test-retest reliability, longitudinal construct validity, clinical trial discrimination, thresholds of meaning) but uses the PROGRESS-Plus characteristics as rows. We found several examples of studies of the HAQ which had assessed one or more PROGRESS-Plus characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

The most commonly reported equity considerations were related to language. OMERACT Equity virtual meeting participants were polled and they indicated that the SOMP Equity Extension is useful for highlighting and tracking equity considerations for OMERACT Core Outcome Measurement Instruments.

Improving Social Justice in COVID-19 Health Research: Interim Guidelines for Reporting Health Equity in Observational Studies

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the global imperative to address health inequities. Observational studies are a valuable source of evidence for real-world effects and impacts of implementing COVID-19 policies on the redistribution of inequities. We assembled a diverse global multi-disciplinary team to develop interim guidance for improving transparency in reporting health equity in COVID-19 observational studies. We identified 14 areas in the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist that need additional detail to encourage transparent reporting of health equity. We searched for examples of COVID-19 observational studies that analysed and reported health equity analysis across one or more social determinants of health. We engaged with Indigenous stakeholders and others groups experiencing health inequities to co-produce this guidance and to bring an intersectional lens. Taking health equity and social determinants of health into account contributes to the clinical and epidemiological understanding of the disease, identifying specific needs and supporting decision-making processes. Stakeholders are encouraged to consider using this guidance on observational research to help provide evidence to close the inequitable gaps in health outcomes.

Endorsement of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials: Results from a multi-stepped consensus-building approach

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

The process followed the OMERACT Filter 2.1 methodology, and used consensus-building methods, with patients involved since the inception. After developing the draft core domain set in previous research, we conducted five steps: (i) improving the draft core domain set; (ii) developing and disseminating white-board videos to promote its understanding; (iii) conducting an electronic survey to gather feedback on the draft core domain set; (iv) finalizing the core domain set and developing summaries, a plenary session video and discussion boards to promote its understanding; and (v) conducting virtual workshops with voting to endorse the core domain set.

RESULTS

A total of 167 participants from 28 countries answered the survey (62% were patients/caregivers). Most participants rated domains as relevant (81%-95%) and clear (82%-93%). A total of 149 participants (n = 48 patients/caregivers, 101 clinicians/researchers) participated in virtual workshops and voted on the proposed core domain set which received endorsement by 95%. Endorsed domains are: 1- Knowledge of options, their potential benefits and harms; 2- Chosen option aligned with each patient's values and preferences; 3- Confidence in the chosen option; 4- Satisfaction with the decision-making process; 5- Adherence to the chosen option and 6- Potential negative consequences of the SDM intervention.

CONCLUSION

We achieved consensus among an international group of stakeholders on the OMERACT core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. Future research will develop the Core Outcome Measurement Set.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Prior to this study, there had been no consensus on the OMERACT core domain set for SDM interventions. The current study shows that the OMERACT core domain set achieved a high level of endorsement by key stakeholders, including patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers.

Community-Initiated Research Engagement: Equitable Partnership Delivering Research-Ready Faith-Based Ambassadors

BACKGROUND

Faith-based communities supporting diverse and underserved communities are increasingly being recognized by health researchers as valued partners for research engagement. Although the "why engage" is clearly documented, the how and lessons learned is less well evidenced.

OBJECTIVES

This article describes community-academic collaboration initiated by African American faith-based church leaders to foster equitable partnership, engagement and shared decision making in patient-centered health research initiatives.

METHODS

A phased process of relationship and capacity building was used to found and operationalize a mixed stakeholder community advisory board (CAB). Core phases presented in this article are (1) pre-CAB capacity building, (2) developing the CAB vision and mission, (3) extending CAB capacity, and (4) sustaining CAB capacity.

LESSONS LEARNED

Collaborative governance and shared goal setting delivers research engagement which supports the data needs and aspirations of faith-based communities.

CONCLUSIONS

Faith-based communities have the capacity to design and deliver community appropriate governance for research engagement.

Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation

BACKGROUND

Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation.

METHODS

This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation.

DISCUSSION

We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health.

Proceedings of the 2017 Advancing the Science of Community Engaged Research (CEnR) Conference

BACKGROUND

To address an urgent need to advance the field of community engaged research, faculty at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and Meharry Medical College organized the national meeting "Advancing the Science of Community Engaged Research (CEnR): Innovative & Effective Methods of Stakeholder Engagement in Translational Research, Washington, DC September 14-15, 2017 (See Additional file 1). These meetings brought together a diverse group of stakeholders to share community engaged research evidence and practical knowledge for implementing new and enhancing existing research programs. The conference series' goals were: 1) to expand the scientific basis for the community engaged research field by convening researchers, community partners, patient advocacy organizations, and others to share innovative methods and strategies; 2) to engage community representatives and patient advocates in the development of new approaches in community engaged research by meaningfully involving them in the planning, as speakers and presenters, and as conference participants; and 3) to catalyze innovative community engaged research using interactive meeting methods that promote learning, support collective problem solving, and encourage new conceptual frameworks. These conferences have advanced community engagement across the translational research spectrum in biomedical research. For the 2017 meeting, described here, the overarching theme was Innovative and Effective Methods of Stakeholder Engagement in Translational Research.

METHODS

The forum was attended by over 210 participants. This conference used novel approaches to fulfill its objectives of participant diversity, meaningful stakeholder engagement, and eliciting varied distinct perspectives to advance the science of community engaged research. Innovative strategies for the conference included: Think Tanks focused on emerging community engaged research topics or topics in need of urgent attention. These dynamic group sessions provided for freely sharing ideas with the purpose of creating change and facilitating new research collaborations. Learning Labs offered unique opportunities to gain practical knowledge regarding innovative methods in community engaged research. Learning Labs also facilitated the wide broadcast of locally successful engagement methods with the goal of speeding the uptake and implementation of community engaged methods. Travel Scholarships were provided for twenty community and patient representatives to participate in the conference. The lack of travel funds was a significant barrier to stakeholder participation in prior community engaged research meetings. The scholarships expanded the role of community and patient representatives in setting research priorities and promoting methods development. Meaningful Engagement meant that community members and patients participated in decision making on all aspects of the conference planning, including the selection of themes, topics, and speakers, and were fully integrated into the conference as speakers, panelists, and moderators.

CONCLUSIONS

Community and stakeholder engagement can directly impact research by enhancing clinical trial design, increasing relevance, and increasing recruitment, accrual and retention (Staley K.: Exploring Impact: Public 53 Involvement in NHS, Public Health and Social Care Research - INVOLVE.; 2009, Johnson et al Clin Transl Sci 8:388-54 390, 2015, Joosten et al Acad Med 90:1646-1650, 2015). The 2017 Advancing the Science of Community Engaged Research meeting, Innovative and Effective Methods of Stakeholder Engagement in Translational Research facilitated meaningful engagement of diverse stakeholder groups including racial and ethnic minorities, community and patient representatives, and junior investigators. Of 210 attendees, 72 completed the evaluation, and, of those, 36% self-affiliated as community members, and 21% as patient/caregiver advocacy, faith-based, or tribal organization members. This conference 1) represented a step toward expanding the scientific basis for the community engaged research (CEnR) field; 2) catalyzed innovative community engaged research; and 3) enhanced the reach and impact of the scientific developments emerging from pioneering work in community engagement.

Practical Guidance for Involving Stakeholders in Health Research

Stakeholder engagement is increasingly common in health research, with protocols for engaging multiple stakeholder groups becoming normative in patient-centered outcomes research. Previous work has focused on identifying relevant stakeholder groups with whom to work and on working with stakeholders in evidence implementation. This paper draws on the expertise of a team from four countries-Canada, Australia, the UK, and the USA-to provide researchers with practical guidance for carrying out multi-stakeholder-engaged projects: we present a list of questions to assist in selecting appropriate roles and modes of engagement; we introduce a matrix to help summarize engagement activities; and we provide a list of online resources. This guidance, matrix, and list of resources can assist researchers to consider more systematically which stakeholder groups to involve, in what study roles, and by what modes of engagement. By documenting how stakeholders are paired up with specific roles, the matrix also provides a potential structure for evaluating the impact of stakeholder engagement.

Considerations and guidance in designing equity-relevant clinical trials

Health research has documented disparities in health and health outcomes within and between populations. When these disparities are unfair and avoidable they may be referred to as health inequities. Few trials attend to factors related to health inequities, and there is limited understanding about how to build consideration of health inequities into trials. Due consideration of health inequities is important to inform the design, conduct and reporting of trials so that research can build evidence to more effectively address health inequities and importantly, ensure that inequities are not aggravated. In this paper, we discuss approaches to integrating health equity-considerations in randomized trials by using the PROGRESS Plus framework (Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender, Religion, Education, Socio-economic status, Social capital and "Plus" that includes other context specific factors) and cover: (i) formulation of research questions, (ii) two specific scenarios relevant to trials about health equity and (iii) describe how the PROGRESS Plus characteristics may influence trial design, conduct and analyses. This guidance is intended to support trialists designing equity-relevant trials and lead to better design, conduct, analyses and reporting, by addressing two main issues: how to avoid aggravating inequity among research participants and how to produce information that is useful to decision-makers who are concerned with health inequities.

Personal touch: personal health records for consumers of healthcare

Personal health records (PHRs) consist of medical records that the consumer collects from each of their healthcare providers, plus any health information that the consumer adds. Sharing information from the PHR with providers enables the consumer and provider to work together. Use of data in the PHR can help reduce or eliminate duplicate procedures or processes. This helps save time and healthcare dollars. It can help the consumer receive better, more coordinated healthcare. In addition, PHRs will eventually have the impact of empowering consumers as never before to make informed healthcare choices and have a positive impact on the overall cost of healthcare. This article is part of a series of unpublished essays titled A Community View on How Personal Health Records Can Improve Patient Care and Outcomes in Many Healthcare Settings, a collaborative project of Northern Illinois Physicians For Connectivity and the Coalition for Quality and Patient Safety of Chicagoland. For further information on how you can obtain copies of the complete work, contact the principle Dr. Stasia Kahn at Stash5@sbcglobal.net.