Controversy and Debate Series on Core Outcome Sets. Paper 5: large-scale, mixed-methods knowledge exchange to establish core outcomes — The SONG approach

Simon A. Carter, Allison Tong, Talia Gutman, Nicole Scholes-Robertson, Armando Teixeira-Pinto, Martin Howell, Jonathan C. Craig

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

We read with interest the article by Chevance et al. in this issue in which the authors propose three adaptations to the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) guidance for developing core outcome sets (COS):

•Replace interviews/focus groups with an online international survey to elicit outcome domains from patients and stakeholders.
•Replace the multiround Delphi survey with a single-round, international ranking survey to determine priorities for outcomes.
•Conduct an online survey that includes patients when selecting outcome measures.

The author's primary rationale for these amendments is that insufficient numbers and diversity of patients participate in interviews and focus groups, and they highlight concerns around using the Delphi method in a COS context. They suggest that overall patient involvement is limited in COS development, there is poor engagement of stakeholders internationally (particularly in non-English speaking regions), and that these issues may constrain the credibility and implementation of COS.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)225-228
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume125
Early online date13 May 2020
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2020

Keywords

  • core outcome sets
  • Focus group interview
  • Delphi method
  • focus groups
  • stakeholders

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Controversy and Debate Series on Core Outcome Sets. Paper 5: large-scale, mixed-methods knowledge exchange to establish core outcomes — The SONG approach'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this