ReviewPloS one2017
A review of patient and carer participation and the use of qualitative research in the development of core outcome sets.
Review in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Public involvement in Australian clinical trials: A systematic review.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Systematic review of international Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: representation of international patients.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Article
- Developing a core outcome set for intervention studies in post stroke cognitive impairment (COS-PSCI): a protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Synthesis and Standardization of Outcomes in Severe Malaria Treatment Trials: Protocol for the Development of a Core Outcome Set (the COSSMaT Study).JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- AUDACE: a study protocol for the realist mixed methods evaluation of the BCM2.0 occupational therapy and assistive device programme for older people aging in place.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Article
- Interventions to Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy Induced Oral Mucositis: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2025Article
- What matters most to people living with epilepsy? A rapid review of qualitative research relating to health outcomes.Epilepsia · 2025Review
- Article
- A Systematic Review of the Reporting Quality of Qualitative Research in Breast Plastic Surgery.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2025Review
- Decolonisation and Self-Regulation as Alternative Paths to Data Science Health Research Governance in Africa.Wellcome open research · 2025Article
- Acceptability and perceived barriers to adoption of the core outcome set for maternal and neonatal health research and surveillance during emerging and ongoing epidemic threats (MNH-EPI-COS): An online survey.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Harmonising outcome measurement for child focused domestic abuse interventions. Reflections on the development and implementation of a core outcome set.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Developing a Core Outcome Set for Prognostic Research in Palliative Cancer Care: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Key outcomes for reporting in studies of pregnant women with multiple long-term conditions: a qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- A core outcome set for lower limb orthopaedic surgery for children with cerebral palsy: An international multi-stakeholder consensus study.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2023Article
- Improving continence management for people with dementia in the community in Aotearoa, New Zealand: Protocol for a mixed methods study.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo be meaningful, a core outcome set (COS) should be relevant to all stakeholders including patients and carers. This review aimed to explore the methods by which patients and carers have been included as participants in COS development exercises and, in particular, the use and reporting of qualitative methods.
methodsIn August 2015, a search of the Core Outcomes Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database was undertaken to identify papers involving patients and carers in COS development. Data were extracted to identify the data collection methods used in COS development, the number of health professionals, patients and carers participating in these, and the reported details of qualitative research undertaken.
resultsFifty-nine papers reporting patient and carer participation were included in the review, ten of which reported using qualitative methods. Although patients and carers participated in outcome elicitation for inclusion in COS processes, health professionals tended to dominate the prioritisation exercises. Of the ten qualitative papers, only three were reported as a clear pre-designed part of a COS process. Qualitative data were collected using interviews, focus groups or a combination of these. None of the qualitative papers reported an underpinning methodological framework and details regarding data saturation, reflexivity and resource use associated with data collection were often poorly reported. Five papers reported difficulty in achieving a diverse sample of participants and two reported that a large and varied range of outcomes were often identified by participants making subsequent rating and ranking difficult.
conclusionsConsideration of the best way to include patients and carers throughout the COS development process is needed. Additionally, further work is required to assess the potential role of qualitative methods in COS, to explore the knowledge produced by different qualitative data collection methods, and to evaluate the time and resources required to incorporate qualitative methods into COS development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.