Core outcome sets for use in effectiveness trials involving people with bipolar and schizophrenia in a community-based setting (PARTNERS2): Study protocol for the development of two core outcome sets

Trials

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Keeley, Thomas ^a   Khan, Humera ^a   Pinfold, Vanessa ^b   Williamson, Paula ^c   Mathers, Jonathan ^a   Davies, Linda ^d   Sayers, Ruth ^b   England, Elizabeth ^a   Reilly, Siobhan ^e   Byng, Richard ^f   Gask, Linda ^g   Clark, Mike ^h   Huxley, Peter ⁱ   Lewis, Peter ^j   Birchwood, Maximillian ^k   Calvert, Melanie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b Faculty of ArtsThe McPin Foundation   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^e LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^h LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^j BIRMINGHAM AND SOLIHULL MENTAL HEALTH NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^k UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIPOLAR DISORDER; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; DELPHI STUDY; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERVIEW; LIFE EXPECTANCY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; POPULATION; PSYCHIATRIST; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SCHIZOPHRENIA; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; SOCIAL WELFARE; CONTROLLED STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

BIPOLAR DISORDER; CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; DELPHI TECHNIQUE; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SCHIZOPHRENIA;

EID: 84924242956     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17456215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-0553-0     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. WHO. Global Burden of disease report. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2008.
2. Reilly S, Planner C, Hann M, Reeves D, Nazareth I, Lester H. The role of primary care in service provision for people with severe mental illness in the United Kingdom. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36468.
3. Perala J, Suvisaari J, Saarni SI, Kuoppasalmi K, Isometsa E, Pirkola S, et al. Lifetime prevalence of psychotic and bipolar I disorders in a general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64(1):19-28.
4. Wahlbeck K, Westman J, Nordentoft M, Gissler M, Laursen TM. Outcomes of Nordic mental health systems: life expectancy of patients with mental disorders. Br J Psychiatry. 2011;199(6):453-8.
5. Chang CK, Hayes RD, Perera G, Broadbent MTM, Fernandes AC, Lee WE, et al. Life expectancy at birth for people with serious mental illness and other major disorders from a secondary mental health care case register in London. PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e19590.
6. McCrone P, Dhanasiri S, Patel A, Knapp M, Lawton-Smith S. Paying the Price. London: Kings Fund; 2008.
7. Mangalore R, Knapp M. Cost of schizophrenia in England. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2007;10(1):23-41.
8. Tovey D. The Impact of Cochrane Reviews. 2010. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21833930
9. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132.
10. Miyar J, Adams CE. Content and quality of 10 000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 60 years. Schizophr Bull. 2013;39(1):226-9.
11. Harmonised Tripartite Guideline ICH. Statistical principles for clinical trials. International Conference on Harmonisation E9 Expert Working Group. Stat Med. 1999;18(15):1905-42.
12. Lewis J. 10 years of ICH E9. Pharm Stat. 2008;7(1):1-3.
13. Phillips A, Haudiquet V. ICH E9 guideline 'Statistical principles for clinical trials': a case study. Stat Med. 2003;22(1):1-11. discussion 13-7.
14. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, Cronin E, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One. 2008;3(8):e3081.
15. McGauran N, Wiesler B, Kreis J, Schuller YB, Kolsch H, Kaiser T. Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review. Trials. 2010;11:37.
16. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, Smyth R, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010;340:c365.
17. Muralidhar V. The impact of selective outcome reporting in trials of mental health interventions: statistical evidence of bias. Oxford: The University of Oxford; 2011.
18. Sinha IP, Altman DG, Beresford MW, Boers M, Clarke M, Craig J, et al. StaR Child Health Group. Standard 5: Selection, measurement, and reporting of outcomes in clinical trials in children. Pediatrics. 2012;129:S146-52.
19. Williamson P, Clarke M. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative: its role in improving Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;5, ED000041.
20. Brod M, Tesler LE, Christensen TL. Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(9):1263-78.
21. Spencer L, Ritchie J, O'Connor W. Analysis: Practices, Principles and Processes. In: Lewis J, Ritchie J, editors. Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage; 2009.
22. Reilly S, Planner C, Gask L, Hann M, Knowles S, Druss B, et al. Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;11:1-60.
23. NIMHE. Mental Health Outcomes Compendium. London: NIMHE; 2008.
24. NIHR. Outcome measurement in mental health: the views of service users. London: Mental Health Research Network; 2010.
25. Sinha IP, Gallagher R, Williamson PR, Smyth RL. Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in childhood asthma: a survey of clinicians, parents, and young people. Trials. 2012;13:103.
26. Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health-services research. Br Med J. 1995;311(7001):376-80.
27. Sinha IP, Smyth RL, Williamson PR. Using the Delphi Technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies. PLoS Med. 2011;8(1):e1000393.
28. Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1:10.
29. Khangura S, Polisena J, Clifford TJ, Farrah K, Kamel C. Rapid review: an emerging approach to evidence synthesis in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(1):20-7.
30. Macefield RC, Jacobs M, Korfage IJ, Nicklin J, Whistance RN, Brookes ST, et al. Developing core outcomes sets: methods for identifying and including patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Trials. 2014;15:49.
31. Angst F. The new COSMIN guidelines confront traditional concepts of responsiveness. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:152. author reply 152.
32. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonson J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737-45.
33. Brazier J, Deverill M. A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. Health Econ. 1999;8(1):41-51.
34. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: a practical guide to their development and Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
35. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(2):171-8.
36. Mosier CI. A critical examination of the concepts of face validity. Educ Psychol Meas. 1947;7(2):191-205.