Advanced

Domains Selection for Patient-Reported Outcomes: Current Activities and Options for Future Methods

Tugwell, Peter S.; Petersson, Ingemar LU ; Boers, Maarten; Gossec, Laure; Kirwan, John R.; Rader, Tamara; Sanderson, Tessa C.; van de Laar, Mart A.; Ueffing, Erin and Witter, James P. (2011) In Journal of Rheumatology 38(8). p.1702-1710
Abstract
Introduction. Over the years, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) has worked toward consensus on core sets for outcome measurement in specific rheumatologic diseases. OMERACT core sets refer to the minimum number of domains and instruments essential to address the desired outcomes in trials. "Domains" are the attributes of an activity or function. This article discusses the need for an open process for selecting domains, existing frameworks for choosing domains, and the importance of describing the methods for selecting domains. Methods. We reviewed the domains selection process of 3 OMERACT groups working on patient-reported outcomes (PRO). We categorized these methods in a hierarchy of comprehensiveness and... (More)
Introduction. Over the years, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) has worked toward consensus on core sets for outcome measurement in specific rheumatologic diseases. OMERACT core sets refer to the minimum number of domains and instruments essential to address the desired outcomes in trials. "Domains" are the attributes of an activity or function. This article discusses the need for an open process for selecting domains, existing frameworks for choosing domains, and the importance of describing the methods for selecting domains. Methods. We reviewed the domains selection process of 3 OMERACT groups working on patient-reported outcomes (PRO). We categorized these methods in a hierarchy of comprehensiveness and examined the extent to which they address related issues. Results. There was agreement that a gold standard for domain selection would include 3 important aspects: following a framework, remaining true to the clinical question, and including the clinically relevant outcomes for both benefits and harms. Discussion. OMERACT participants agreed that a guide for the options for developing domains that meet the OMERACT Filter would be useful. More discussion and explanation is needed to outline outcomes related to the patient perspective that are not covered by the current version of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and to explain the usefulness of the population/intervention/comparison/outcome (PICO) structure in domain selection. Future OMERACT work includes addressing these issues and developing a framework based on the ICF to support comprehensive outcome measurements. (J Rheumatol 2011;38:1702-10; doi:10.3899/jrheum.110389) (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
OUTCOME MEASURES, RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES
in
Journal of Rheumatology
volume
38
issue
8
pages
1702 - 1710
publisher
J Rheumatol Publ Co
external identifiers
  • wos:000293315000030
  • scopus:79961110322
ISSN
0315-162X
DOI
10.3899/jrheum.110389
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
de27886f-3e7f-4a84-ba37-810ba8689c66 (old id 2161235)
date added to LUP
2011-10-03 08:32:10
date last changed
2017-11-05 03:15:19
@article{de27886f-3e7f-4a84-ba37-810ba8689c66,
  abstract     = {Introduction. Over the years, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) has worked toward consensus on core sets for outcome measurement in specific rheumatologic diseases. OMERACT core sets refer to the minimum number of domains and instruments essential to address the desired outcomes in trials. "Domains" are the attributes of an activity or function. This article discusses the need for an open process for selecting domains, existing frameworks for choosing domains, and the importance of describing the methods for selecting domains. Methods. We reviewed the domains selection process of 3 OMERACT groups working on patient-reported outcomes (PRO). We categorized these methods in a hierarchy of comprehensiveness and examined the extent to which they address related issues. Results. There was agreement that a gold standard for domain selection would include 3 important aspects: following a framework, remaining true to the clinical question, and including the clinically relevant outcomes for both benefits and harms. Discussion. OMERACT participants agreed that a guide for the options for developing domains that meet the OMERACT Filter would be useful. More discussion and explanation is needed to outline outcomes related to the patient perspective that are not covered by the current version of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and to explain the usefulness of the population/intervention/comparison/outcome (PICO) structure in domain selection. Future OMERACT work includes addressing these issues and developing a framework based on the ICF to support comprehensive outcome measurements. (J Rheumatol 2011;38:1702-10; doi:10.3899/jrheum.110389)},
  author       = {Tugwell, Peter S. and Petersson, Ingemar and Boers, Maarten and Gossec, Laure and Kirwan, John R. and Rader, Tamara and Sanderson, Tessa C. and van de Laar, Mart A. and Ueffing, Erin and Witter, James P.},
  issn         = {0315-162X},
  keyword      = {OUTCOME MEASURES,RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS,PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {8},
  pages        = {1702--1710},
  publisher    = {J Rheumatol Publ Co},
  series       = {Journal of Rheumatology},
  title        = {Domains Selection for Patient-Reported Outcomes: Current Activities and Options for Future Methods},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.110389},
  volume       = {38},
  year         = {2011},
}