Patient participation in Delphi surveys to develop core outcome sets: systematic review
Objectives To describe the design and conduct of core outcome set (COS) studies that have included patients as participants, exploring how study characteristics might impact their response rates.Design Systematic review of COS studies published between 2015 and 2019 that included more than one patie...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2021-09-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/9/e051066.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850179128965201920 |
|---|---|
| author | Bridget Young Paula R Williamson Heather Barrington |
| author_facet | Bridget Young Paula R Williamson Heather Barrington |
| author_sort | Bridget Young |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives To describe the design and conduct of core outcome set (COS) studies that have included patients as participants, exploring how study characteristics might impact their response rates.Design Systematic review of COS studies published between 2015 and 2019 that included more than one patient, carer or representative as participants (hereafter referred to as patients for brevity) in scoring outcomes in a Delphi.Results There were variations in the design and conduct of COS studies that included patients in the Delphi process, including differing: scoring and feedback systems, approaches to recruiting patients, length of time between rounds, use of reminders, incentives, patient and public involvement, and piloting. Minimal reporting of participant characteristics and a lack of translation of Delphi surveys into local languages were found. Additionally, there were indications that studies that recruited patients through treatment centres had higher round two response rates than studies recruiting through patient organisations.Conclusions Variability was striking in how COS Delphi surveys were designed and conducted to include patient participants and other stakeholders. Future research is needed to explore what motivates patients to take part in COS studies and what factors influence COS developer recruitment strategies. Improved reporting would increase knowledge of how methods affect patient participation in COS Delphi studies. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-063e06c3bc4245618857c55e5c80ebaf |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2021-09-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-063e06c3bc4245618857c55e5c80ebaf2025-08-20T02:18:35ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552021-09-0111910.1136/bmjopen-2021-051066Patient participation in Delphi surveys to develop core outcome sets: systematic reviewBridget Young0Paula R Williamson1Heather Barrington2Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK18 University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UKDepartment of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UKObjectives To describe the design and conduct of core outcome set (COS) studies that have included patients as participants, exploring how study characteristics might impact their response rates.Design Systematic review of COS studies published between 2015 and 2019 that included more than one patient, carer or representative as participants (hereafter referred to as patients for brevity) in scoring outcomes in a Delphi.Results There were variations in the design and conduct of COS studies that included patients in the Delphi process, including differing: scoring and feedback systems, approaches to recruiting patients, length of time between rounds, use of reminders, incentives, patient and public involvement, and piloting. Minimal reporting of participant characteristics and a lack of translation of Delphi surveys into local languages were found. Additionally, there were indications that studies that recruited patients through treatment centres had higher round two response rates than studies recruiting through patient organisations.Conclusions Variability was striking in how COS Delphi surveys were designed and conducted to include patient participants and other stakeholders. Future research is needed to explore what motivates patients to take part in COS studies and what factors influence COS developer recruitment strategies. Improved reporting would increase knowledge of how methods affect patient participation in COS Delphi studies.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/9/e051066.full |
| spellingShingle | Bridget Young Paula R Williamson Heather Barrington Patient participation in Delphi surveys to develop core outcome sets: systematic review BMJ Open |
| title | Patient participation in Delphi surveys to develop core outcome sets: systematic review |
| title_full | Patient participation in Delphi surveys to develop core outcome sets: systematic review |
| title_fullStr | Patient participation in Delphi surveys to develop core outcome sets: systematic review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Patient participation in Delphi surveys to develop core outcome sets: systematic review |
| title_short | Patient participation in Delphi surveys to develop core outcome sets: systematic review |
| title_sort | patient participation in delphi surveys to develop core outcome sets systematic review |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/9/e051066.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT bridgetyoung patientparticipationindelphisurveystodevelopcoreoutcomesetssystematicreview AT paularwilliamson patientparticipationindelphisurveystodevelopcoreoutcomesetssystematicreview AT heatherbarrington patientparticipationindelphisurveystodevelopcoreoutcomesetssystematicreview |