Cargando…

Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery

BACKGROUND: Appropriate outcome selection is essential if research is to guide decision‐making and inform policy. Systematic reviews of the clinical, cosmetic and patient‐reported outcomes of reconstructive breast surgery, however, have demonstrated marked heterogeneity, and results from individual...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Potter, S., Holcombe, C., Ward, J. A., Blazeby, J. M., Brookes, S. T., Cawthorn, S. J., Harcourt, D., Macefield, R., Warr, R., Weiler‐Mithoff, E., Williamson, P. R., Wilson, S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5034747/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26179938
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9883
_version_ 1782455325583998976
author Potter, S.
Holcombe, C.
Ward, J. A.
Blazeby, J. M.
Brookes, S. T.
Cawthorn, S. J.
Harcourt, D.
Macefield, R.
Warr, R.
Weiler‐Mithoff, E.
Williamson, P. R.
Wilson, S.
author_facet Potter, S.
Holcombe, C.
Ward, J. A.
Blazeby, J. M.
Brookes, S. T.
Cawthorn, S. J.
Harcourt, D.
Macefield, R.
Warr, R.
Weiler‐Mithoff, E.
Williamson, P. R.
Wilson, S.
author_sort Potter, S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Appropriate outcome selection is essential if research is to guide decision‐making and inform policy. Systematic reviews of the clinical, cosmetic and patient‐reported outcomes of reconstructive breast surgery, however, have demonstrated marked heterogeneity, and results from individual studies cannot be compared or combined. Use of a core outcome set may improve the situation. The BRAVO study developed a core outcome set for reconstructive breast surgery. METHODS: A long list of outcomes identified from systematic reviews and stakeholder interviews was used to inform a questionnaire survey. Key stakeholders defined as individuals involved in decision‐making for reconstructive breast surgery, including patients, breast and plastic surgeons, specialist nurses and psychologists, were sampled purposively and sent the questionnaire (round 1). This asked them to rate the importance of each outcome on a 9‐point Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (extremely important). The proportion of respondents rating each item as very important (score 7–9) was calculated. This was fed back to participants in a second questionnaire (round 2). Respondents were asked to reprioritize outcomes based on the feedback received. Items considered very important after round 2 were discussed at consensus meetings, where the core outcome set was agreed. RESULTS: A total of 148 items were combined into 34 domains within six categories. Some 303 participants (51·4 per cent) (215 (49·5 per cent) of 434 patients; 88 (56·4 per cent) of 156 professionals) completed and returned the round 1 questionnaire, and 259 (85·5 per cent) reprioritized outcomes in round 2. Fifteen items were excluded based on questionnaire scores and 19 were carried forward to the consensus meetings, where a core outcome set containing 11 key outcomes was agreed. CONCLUSION: The BRAVO study has used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for reconstructive breast surgery. Widespread adoption by the reconstructive community will improve the quality of outcome assessment in effectiveness studies. Future work will evaluate how these key outcomes should best be measured.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5034747
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50347472016-10-03 Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery Potter, S. Holcombe, C. Ward, J. A. Blazeby, J. M. Brookes, S. T. Cawthorn, S. J. Harcourt, D. Macefield, R. Warr, R. Weiler‐Mithoff, E. Williamson, P. R. Wilson, S. Br J Surg Original Articles BACKGROUND: Appropriate outcome selection is essential if research is to guide decision‐making and inform policy. Systematic reviews of the clinical, cosmetic and patient‐reported outcomes of reconstructive breast surgery, however, have demonstrated marked heterogeneity, and results from individual studies cannot be compared or combined. Use of a core outcome set may improve the situation. The BRAVO study developed a core outcome set for reconstructive breast surgery. METHODS: A long list of outcomes identified from systematic reviews and stakeholder interviews was used to inform a questionnaire survey. Key stakeholders defined as individuals involved in decision‐making for reconstructive breast surgery, including patients, breast and plastic surgeons, specialist nurses and psychologists, were sampled purposively and sent the questionnaire (round 1). This asked them to rate the importance of each outcome on a 9‐point Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (extremely important). The proportion of respondents rating each item as very important (score 7–9) was calculated. This was fed back to participants in a second questionnaire (round 2). Respondents were asked to reprioritize outcomes based on the feedback received. Items considered very important after round 2 were discussed at consensus meetings, where the core outcome set was agreed. RESULTS: A total of 148 items were combined into 34 domains within six categories. Some 303 participants (51·4 per cent) (215 (49·5 per cent) of 434 patients; 88 (56·4 per cent) of 156 professionals) completed and returned the round 1 questionnaire, and 259 (85·5 per cent) reprioritized outcomes in round 2. Fifteen items were excluded based on questionnaire scores and 19 were carried forward to the consensus meetings, where a core outcome set containing 11 key outcomes was agreed. CONCLUSION: The BRAVO study has used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for reconstructive breast surgery. Widespread adoption by the reconstructive community will improve the quality of outcome assessment in effectiveness studies. Future work will evaluate how these key outcomes should best be measured. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2015-07-15 2015-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5034747/ /pubmed/26179938 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9883 Text en © 2015 The Authors. BJS published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Potter, S.
Holcombe, C.
Ward, J. A.
Blazeby, J. M.
Brookes, S. T.
Cawthorn, S. J.
Harcourt, D.
Macefield, R.
Warr, R.
Weiler‐Mithoff, E.
Williamson, P. R.
Wilson, S.
Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery
title Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery
title_full Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery
title_fullStr Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery
title_full_unstemmed Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery
title_short Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery
title_sort development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5034747/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26179938
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9883
work_keys_str_mv AT potters developmentofacoreoutcomesetforresearchandauditstudiesinreconstructivebreastsurgery
AT holcombec developmentofacoreoutcomesetforresearchandauditstudiesinreconstructivebreastsurgery
AT wardja developmentofacoreoutcomesetforresearchandauditstudiesinreconstructivebreastsurgery
AT blazebyjm developmentofacoreoutcomesetforresearchandauditstudiesinreconstructivebreastsurgery
AT developmentofacoreoutcomesetforresearchandauditstudiesinreconstructivebreastsurgery
AT brookesst developmentofacoreoutcomesetforresearchandauditstudiesinreconstructivebreastsurgery
AT cawthornsj developmentofacoreoutcomesetforresearchandauditstudiesinreconstructivebreastsurgery
AT harcourtd developmentofacoreoutcomesetforresearchandauditstudiesinreconstructivebreastsurgery
AT macefieldr developmentofacoreoutcomesetforresearchandauditstudiesinreconstructivebreastsurgery
AT warrr developmentofacoreoutcomesetforresearchandauditstudiesinreconstructivebreastsurgery
AT weilermithoffe developmentofacoreoutcomesetforresearchandauditstudiesinreconstructivebreastsurgery
AT williamsonpr developmentofacoreoutcomesetforresearchandauditstudiesinreconstructivebreastsurgery
AT wilsons developmentofacoreoutcomesetforresearchandauditstudiesinreconstructivebreastsurgery