Exploring methods the for selection and integration of stakeholder views in the development of core outcome sets: a case study in reconstructive breast surgery.
BACKGROUND
The development and use of core outcome sets (COSs) in trials may improve data synthesis and reduce outcome reporting bias. The selection of outcomes in COSs is informed by views of key stakeholders, yet little is known about the role and influence of different stakeholders' views during COS development. We report an exploratory case study examining how stakeholder selection and incorporation of stakeholders' views may influence the selection of outcomes for a COS in reconstructive breast surgery (RBS). We also make recommendations for future considerations.


METHODS
Key stakeholder groups and subgroups were identified from the literature and expert opinion by the COS management group. They included health care professionals, subdivided by profession (breast and plastic surgeons, specialist nurses and psychologists) and patients, subdivided according to type of surgery received, timing of reconstruction, time since surgery and patient age. All participated in a survey in which they were asked to prioritise outcomes. Outcomes were prioritised using a 9-point scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (extremely important). The proportion of (1) all participants, ignoring stakeholder group (single heterogeneous panel analysis), (2) 'professional' and 'patient' groups separately (two heterogeneous panels), ignoring prespecified subgroups and (3) each participant subgroup separately (multiple homogeneous panel analysis) rating each item 'extremely important' was summarised and compared to explore how selection and integration of stakeholder views may influence outcome prioritisation.


RESULTS
There were many overlaps between items rated as most important by all groups. Specific stakeholders, however, prioritised specific concerns and a broader range of outcomes were prioritised when the subgroups were considered separately. For example, two additional outcomes were prioritised when patient and professional groups were considered separately and eight additional outcomes were identified when the views of the individual subgroups were explored. In general, patient subgroups preferentially valued additional clinical outcomes, including unplanned surgery, whereas professional subgroups prioritised additional psychosocial issues including body image.


CONCLUSIONS
Stakeholder groups value different outcomes. Selection of groups, therefore, is important. Our recommendations for robust and transparent stakeholder selection and integration of stakeholder views may aid future COS developers in the design and conduct of their studies and improve the validity and value of future COS.
Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Clifton, Bristol, UK. shelley.potter@bristol.ac.uk.|Linda McCartney Breast Care Centre, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK. shelley.potter@bristol.ac.uk.
Shelley
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6977-312X
S
Potter
Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Clifton, Bristol, UK.
Sara T
ST
Brookes
Linda McCartney Breast Care Centre, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Christopher
C
Holcombe
Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Clifton, Bristol, UK.
Joseph A
JA
Ward
Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Clifton, Bristol, UK.|Division of Surgery, Head and Neck, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Upper Maudlin Street, Bristol, UK.
Jane M
JM
Blazeby
Breast reconstruction; Core outcome sets; Delphi; Methodology; Stakeholder selection
Trials. 2013 Oct 09;14:324
24103529
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Jan 5;103(1):31-46
21131574
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;67(4):401-9
24581294
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2012 Jan;17(1):1-2
22294719
Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 Jun;18(6):1748-56
21207163
Ann Surg. 2012 Apr;255(4):658-66
22395090
BMJ. 1995 Jul 8;311(6997):109-12
7613363
Trials. 2007 Nov 26;8:38
18039364
J Surg Oncol. 2014 Dec;110(7):796-800
25043670
Trials. 2012 Aug 06;13:132
22867278
Trials. 2014 Mar 14;15:80
24628821
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2004 Dec;8(4):315-24
15550361
PLoS Med. 2011 Jan 25;8(1):e1000393
21283604
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 16;9(6):e99111
24932522
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 26;10(6):e0129514
26115172
Trials. 2015 Aug 22;16:373
26297658
Br J Surg. 2015 Oct;102(11):1360-71
26179938
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Aug 08;106(9):null
25106656
Br J Surg. 2015 Jan;102(2):e108-16
25627122
Br J Cancer. 2013 Sep 3;109(5):1181-91
23928662
Trials. 2016 Aug 17;17(1):409
27534622
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Apr 13;(5):ED000041
22592744
J Invest Dermatol. 2011 Mar;131(3):623-30
20944653
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2004 Sep;8(3):211-23
15304229
Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 Mar;18(3):813-23
20972633
Trials. 2007 Nov 26;8:39
18039365
BMJ. 2000 Jan 1;320(7226):50-2
10617534
J Rheumatol. 2007 May;34(5):1174-7
17477482
Breast. 2015 Dec;24(6):732-8
26422125
JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Jun 10;173(11):972-9
23699837
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Jan;127(1):18-26
21200195
Obes Rev. 2015 Jan;16(1):88-106
25442513
BMJ. 2013 Oct 15;347:f5903
24128977