Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Incorporating patients’ perspectives into the initial stages of core outcome set development: a rapid review of qualitative studies of type 2 diabetes
  1. Sarah L Gorst1,
  2. Bridget Young2,
  3. Paula R Williamson1,
  4. John P H Wilding3,
  5. Nicola L Harman1
  1. 1 MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
  2. 2 MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
  3. 3 Obesity and Endocrinology Clinical Research Group, University of Liverpool and Aintree University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Nicola L Harman; n.harman{at}liv.ac.uk

Abstract

Conducting systematic reviews of qualitative studies to incorporate patient perspectives within the early stages of core outcome set (COS) development can be resource intensive. We aimed to identify an expedited approach to be used as part of the wider COS development process. Specifically, we undertook a rapid review of qualitative studies of patients’ views and experiences of type 2 diabetes. We searched MEDLINE from inception to June 2017 to identify studies reporting qualitative empirical findings of perspectives of people with type 2 diabetes. Qualitative methodological filters were used to minimize irrelevant references. Drawing on content analysis, data synthesis involved identifying text in eligible studies relevant to outcomes of type 2 diabetes and interpreting and categorizing this according to the 38 core domains of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy. Of 146 studies screened, 26 were included. Four hundred and fifty-eight outcomes were derived from the included studies. In comparison to the outcomes extracted from clinical trials, more life impact outcomes were derived from the qualitative studies, but fewer physiological/clinical outcomes. Outcomes relating to ‘mortality/survival’ and ‘role functioning’ were more prevalent in studies conducted in low/middle-income countries. This rapid review and synthesis of qualitative studies identified outcomes that had not previously been identified by a systematic review of clinical trials. It also identified differences in the types of outcomes given prominence to in the clinical trials and qualitative literatures. Incorporating qualitative evidence on patient perspectives from the outset of the COS development process can help to ensure outcomes that matter to patients are not overlooked. Our method provides a pragmatic and resource-efficient way to do this. For those developing international COS, our method has potential for incorporating the perspectives of patients from diverse countries in the early stages of COS development.

  • type 2 diabetes
  • core outcome set
  • patient perspectives
  • qualitative
  • rapid review

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors SLG: investigation, methodology, writing–original draft preparation, writing–review and editing. BY, JPHW: investigation, writing–review and editing. PRW: conceptualization, funding acquisition, supervision, writing–review and editing. NLH: conceptualization, investigation, project administration, writing–original draft preparation, writing–review and editing.

  • Funding This work was supported by the Medical Research Council North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research grant number MR/K025635/1 and the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (CORBEL, under grant agreement number 654248).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement All the findings from available data have been published in this manuscript. Original extracted data are available from the corresponding author, NLH, on reasonable request.