Development of a core outcome set for psychological therapy trials on acute psychiatric inpatient wards.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Pamela Jacobsen, Katherine Berry, Lucy Clarkson, Rebecca Hiscocks, India Hopkins, Ceri Morgan, Dhaarna Tandon, Ashley-Louise Teale, Natasha Tyler, Lisa Wood
{"title":"Development of a core outcome set for psychological therapy trials on acute psychiatric inpatient wards.","authors":"Pamela Jacobsen, Katherine Berry, Lucy Clarkson, Rebecca Hiscocks, India Hopkins, Ceri Morgan, Dhaarna Tandon, Ashley-Louise Teale, Natasha Tyler, Lisa Wood","doi":"10.1186/s12888-024-06294-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Consensus on what outcomes should be included in trials of psychological therapies on acute psychiatric inpatient wards is currently lacking. Inclusion of different viewpoints, including service user perspectives, is crucial in ensuring that future trials measure outcomes which are meaningful and important. Development of a Core Outcome Set (COS), a minimum standardised set of outcomes to be measured and reported, would help improve synthesis and interpretation of clinical trial data in this area.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Stage 1 of the COS development involved compiling a comprehensive long-list of outcomes from key sources including i) a systematic review of outcomes from published trials, ii) online survey of key stakeholders (service users, carers, healthcare professionals, researchers, and end users of research), iii) qualitative interviews with service users and carers. Stage 2 involved stakeholder groups short-listing the outcomes using consensus methods (e-Delphi survey). The final outcome set was derived from the short-list at a consensus meeting of stakeholders, facilitated by an Independent Chair.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A long-list of 68 outcomes was compiled from the systematic review (n = 30 trials), online stakeholder survey (n = 100 participants) and qualitative interviews (n = 15 participants). Fifty stakeholders took part in the e-Delphi study, where the long-list was cut down to a short-list of 12 outcomes over 2 rounds. Nine stakeholders took part in the final consensus meeting, and after some outcomes were removed and/or amalgamated, a final set of 6 outcomes was recommended for inclusion in the COS. These were Ability to Cope, Hopefulness, Quality of Life, Psychosis Symptoms, Mood, and Self-Harm Behaviours.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Widespread future adoption of the COS will reduce research waste by ensuring that outcomes are more easily comparable across trials, and that the full range of stakeholder priorities are represented in trial outcomes. This makes it more likely that effective therapies will be identified in a timely fashion and successfully implemented in routine clinical practice. The final 6-outcome COS should be feasible to implement given the need keep participant burden to a minimum in inpatient trials. Further work is needed to make recommendations for the best outcome measurement instruments to use, including the use of patient-reported outcomes alongside clinician-rated measures.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":9029,"journal":{"name":"BMC Psychiatry","volume":"24 1","pages":"821"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-06294-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Consensus on what outcomes should be included in trials of psychological therapies on acute psychiatric inpatient wards is currently lacking. Inclusion of different viewpoints, including service user perspectives, is crucial in ensuring that future trials measure outcomes which are meaningful and important. Development of a Core Outcome Set (COS), a minimum standardised set of outcomes to be measured and reported, would help improve synthesis and interpretation of clinical trial data in this area.

Methods: Stage 1 of the COS development involved compiling a comprehensive long-list of outcomes from key sources including i) a systematic review of outcomes from published trials, ii) online survey of key stakeholders (service users, carers, healthcare professionals, researchers, and end users of research), iii) qualitative interviews with service users and carers. Stage 2 involved stakeholder groups short-listing the outcomes using consensus methods (e-Delphi survey). The final outcome set was derived from the short-list at a consensus meeting of stakeholders, facilitated by an Independent Chair.

Results: A long-list of 68 outcomes was compiled from the systematic review (n = 30 trials), online stakeholder survey (n = 100 participants) and qualitative interviews (n = 15 participants). Fifty stakeholders took part in the e-Delphi study, where the long-list was cut down to a short-list of 12 outcomes over 2 rounds. Nine stakeholders took part in the final consensus meeting, and after some outcomes were removed and/or amalgamated, a final set of 6 outcomes was recommended for inclusion in the COS. These were Ability to Cope, Hopefulness, Quality of Life, Psychosis Symptoms, Mood, and Self-Harm Behaviours.

Conclusions: Widespread future adoption of the COS will reduce research waste by ensuring that outcomes are more easily comparable across trials, and that the full range of stakeholder priorities are represented in trial outcomes. This makes it more likely that effective therapies will be identified in a timely fashion and successfully implemented in routine clinical practice. The final 6-outcome COS should be feasible to implement given the need keep participant burden to a minimum in inpatient trials. Further work is needed to make recommendations for the best outcome measurement instruments to use, including the use of patient-reported outcomes alongside clinician-rated measures.

Trial registration: Not applicable.

为急性精神病住院病房的心理治疗试验制定一套核心结果。
背景:关于急性期精神病住院病房心理疗法试验应包括哪些结果,目前尚缺乏共识。纳入不同的观点,包括服务使用者的观点,对于确保未来的试验测量出有意义和重要的结果至关重要。核心结果集(COS)是一套需要测量和报告的最低标准化结果集,它的开发将有助于改善该领域临床试验数据的综合和解释:核心研究成果集开发的第一阶段包括从主要来源编制一份全面的成果长清单,其中包括 i) 对已发表的试验成果进行系统回顾;ii) 对主要利益相关者(服务使用者、护理人员、医疗保健专业人员、研究人员和研究的最终用户)进行在线调查;iii) 对服务使用者和护理人员进行定性访谈。第 2 阶段包括利益相关者小组采用协商一致的方法(电子德尔菲调查)列出成果短名单。在独立主席的主持下,利益相关者举行了一次共识会议,从短名单中得出最终成果集:根据系统综述(n = 30 项试验)、利益相关者在线调查(n = 100 名参与者)和定性访谈(n = 15 名参与者),编制了一份包含 68 项结果的长清单。50 名利益相关者参加了电子德尔菲研究,经过两轮研究,长清单被缩减为一份包含 12 项成果的短清单。九个利益相关者参加了最后的共识会议,在删除和/或合并了一些结果后,建议将最后的 6 项结果纳入 COS。这些结果是:应对能力、希望、生活质量、精神病症状、情绪和自残行为:结论:未来广泛采用 COS 将减少研究浪费,因为它能确保各项试验的结果更容易进行比较,并确保在试验结果中体现利益相关者的全部优先事项。这样就更有可能及时确定有效的疗法,并在常规临床实践中成功实施。考虑到需要将住院试验参与者的负担降至最低,最终的 6 项结果 COS 应该是可行的。还需要进一步开展工作,就使用的最佳结果测量工具提出建议,包括在使用临床医生评定的测量方法的同时使用患者报告的结果:试验注册:不适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Psychiatry
BMC Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
716
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Psychiatry is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of psychiatric disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信