Improving core outcome set development: qualitative interviews with developers provided pointers to inform guidance

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 86, Issue , 2017, Pages 140-152

  Gargon, Elizabeth ^a   Williamson, Paula R ^a   Young, Bridget ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Consensus; Core outcome sets; Delphi; Interview; Outcomes; Qualitative research; Research methodology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDIO RECORDED INTERVIEW; CONSTANT COMPARATIVE METHOD; CONSULTATION; FUNDING; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVALUATION STUDY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROCEDURES;

EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH DESIGN; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE);

EID: 85020181980     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.024     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Chalmers, I., Glasziou, P., Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374 (2009), 86–89.
2. Hirsch, B.R., Califf, R.M., Cheng, S.K., Tasneem, A., Horton, J., Chiswell, K., et al. Characteristics of oncology clinical trials: insights from a systematic analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov. JAMA Intern Med 173 (2013), 972–979.
3. Miyar, J., Adams, C.E., Content and quality of 10,000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 60 years. Schizophr Bull 39 (2013), 226–229.
4. Hutton, J.L., Williamson, P.R., Bias in meta-analysis due to outcome variable selection within studies. Appl Stat 49 (2000), 359–370.
5. Dwan, K., Altman, D.G., Arnaiz, J.A., Bloom, J., Chan, A.-W., Cronin, E., et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One [Electronic Resource], 3, 2008, e3081.
6. Chan, A.W., Song, F., Vickers, A., Jefferson, T., Dickersin, K., Gotzsche, P.C., et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet 383 (2014), 257–266.
7. Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials. Available at http://www.comet-initiative.org/.
8. Gargon, E., Gurung, B., Medley, N., Altman, D.G., Blazeby, J.M., Clarke, M., et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review. PLoS One, 9, 2014, e99111.
9. Sinha, I.P., Gallagher, R., Williamson, P.R., Smyth, R.L., Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in childhood asthma: a survey of clinicians, parents, and young people. Trials, 13, 2012, 103.
10. Reddel, H.K., Taylor, D.R., Bateman, E.D., Boulet, L.P., Boushey, H.A., Busse, W.W., et al. An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: asthma control and exacerbations: standardizing endpoints for clinical asthma trials and clinical practice. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 180 (2009), 59–99.
11. Busse, W.W., Morgan, W.J., Taggart, V., Togias, A., Asthma outcomes workshop: overview. J Allergy Clin Immunol 129 (2012), S1–S8.
12. Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., McNaughton Nicholls, C., Ormston, R., Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. 2014, Sage, London.
13. Bryman, A., Social research methods. 4th ed., 2012, Oxford University Press Inc, New York.
14. Sturges, J.E., Hanrahan, K.J., Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: a research note. Qual Res 4 (2004), 107–118.
15. Glaser, B.G., The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Probl 12 (1965), 436–445.
16. Thorne, S., Data analysis in qualitative research. Evid Based Nurs 3 (2000), 68–70.
17. NVivo. Available at http://www.qsrinternational.com/.
18. O'Brien, B.C., Harris, I.B., Beckman, T.J., Reed, D.A., Cook, D.A., Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med 89 (2014), 1245–1251.
19. Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., Craig, J., Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 19 (2007), 349–357.
20. Gale, N.K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., Redwood, S., Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol, 13, 2013, 117.
21. Barbour, R.S., Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?. BMJ 322 (2001), 1115–1117.
22. Salmon, P., Peters, S., Rogers, A., Gask, L., Clifford, R., Iredale, W., et al. Peering through the barriers in GPs’ explanations for declining to participate in research: the role of professional autonomy and the economy of time. Fam Pract 24 (2007), 269–275.
23. Daly, J., Willis, K., Small, R., Green, J., Welch, N., Kealy, M., et al. A hierarchy of evidence for assessing qualitative health research. J Clin Epidemiol 60 (2007), 43–49.
24. Stige, B., Malterud, K., Midtgarden, T., Toward an agenda for evaluation of qualitative research. Qual Health Res 19 (2009), 1504–1516.
25. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes K, Blazeby J, Brookes S, et al. The COMET Handbook Version 1.0 Trials Submitted.
26. Dalkey, N.C., The Delphi method: An experimental study of group opinion. 1969, The RAND Corp, London RM-5888-PR.
27. Young, B., Bagley, H., Including patients in core outcome set development: issues to consider based on three workshops with around 100 international delegates. Res Involvement Engagement 2 (2016), 1–13.
28. Erkut, S., Developing multiple language versions of instruments for intercultural research. Child Dev Perspect 4 (2010), 19–24.
29. Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Available at http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/.
30. Kirkham, J.J., Gorst, S., Altman, D.G., Blazeby, J., Clarke, M., Devane, D., et al. COS-STAR: a reporting guideline for studies developing core outcome sets (protocol). Trials, 16, 2015, 373.
31. Gargon, E., Williamson, P.R., Altman, D.G., Blazeby, J.M., Clarke, M., The COMET initiative database: progress and activities update (2014). Trials, 16, 2015, 515.
32. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. Available at http://www.omeract.org/.
33. Tugwell, P., Boers, M., Brooks, P., Simon, L., Strand, V., Idzerda, L., OMERACT: an international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials, 8, 2007, 38.
34. Guideline on the clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of asthma. Available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2015/12/WC500198877.pdf.