What is important to people living with dementia?: The 'long-list' of outcome items in the development of a core outcome set for use in the evaluation of non-pharmacological community-based health and social care interventions

Harding, Andrew J.E.; Morbey, Hazel; Ahmed, Faraz; Opdebeeck, Carol; Lasrado, Reena; Williamson, Paula R.; Swarbrick, Caroline; Leroi, Iracema; Challis, David; Hellstrom, Ingrid; Burns, Alistair; Keady, John; Reilly, Siobhan T.

Abstract

© 2019 The Author(s). Background: Core outcome sets (COS) prioritise outcomes based on their importance to key stakeholders, reduce reporting bias and increase comparability across studies. The first phase of a COS study is to form a 'long-list' of outcomes. Key stakeholders then decide on their importance. COS reporting is described as suboptimal and this first phase is often under-reported. Our objective was to develop a 'long-list' of outcome items for non-pharmacological interventions for people with dementia living at home. Methods: Three iterative phases were conducted. First, people living with dementia, care partners, health and social care professionals, policymakers and researchers (n = 55) took part in interviews or focus groups and were asked which outcomes were important. Second, existing dementia trials were identified from the ALOIS database. 248 of 1009 pharmacological studies met the inclusion criteria. Primary and secondary outcomes were extracted from a 50% random sample (n = 124) along with eight key reviews/qualitative papers and 38 policy documents. Third, extracted outcome items were translated onto an existing qualitative framework and mapped into domains. The research team removed areas of duplication and refined the 'long-list' in eight workshops. Results: One hundred seventy outcome items were extracted from the qualitative data and literature. The 170 outcome items were consolidated to 54 in four domains (Self-Managing Dementia Symptoms, Quality of Life, Friendly Neighbourhood & Home, Independence). Conclusions: This paper presents a transparent blueprint for 'long-list' development. Though a useful resource in their own right, the 54 outcome items will be distilled further in a modified Delphi survey and consensus meeting to identify core outcomes.

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Mar 12, 2019
• Online Publication Date: Mar 27, 2019
• Publication Date: Mar 27, 2019
• Deposit Date: Jun 20, 2020
• Publicly Available Date: Jun 23, 2020
• Journal: BMC Geriatrics
• Electronic ISSN: 1471-2318
• Publisher: Springer Verlag
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 19
• Issue: 1
• Article Number: 94
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1103-5
• Keywords: Geriatrics and Gerontology
• Public URL: https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/3750588
• Publisher URL: https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12877-019-1103-5
• Additional Information: Received: 13 September 2018; Accepted: 12 March 2019; First Online: 27 March 2019; : Ethics approval has been obtained from Lancaster University Research Ethics Committee and NHS Research Ethics Committee (Bangor), number 15/WA/0260.All of the participants who were asked and agreed to take part in the study gave verbal and written consent. Consent of people living with dementia was set out in the study Mental Capacity and Process Consent Protocol and conformed to Mental Capacity Act 2015 assessment of capacity. ‘Consenting in the moment’ principles guided consent of people living with dementia with capacity to consent. For one person living with dementia without capacity to consent, consultee permission was acquired and consenting in the moment principles applied during data collection with this person.; : Not applicable; : PW leads to the COMET initiative. There are no competing interests from the other authors.; : Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.