Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39563270›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2024

Development of a core outcome set for psychological therapy trials on acute psychiatric inpatient wards.

Pamela Jacobsen, Katherine Berry, Lucy Clarkson, Rebecca Hiscocks, India Hopkins, Ceri Morgan, Dhaarna Tandon, Ashley-Louise Teale, Natasha Tyler, Lisa Wood

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Pamela JacobsenDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK. pcj25@bath.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8847-7775
Katherine BerryDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Lucy ClarksonDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK.
Rebecca HiscocksDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK.
India HopkinsDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK.
Ceri MorganDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK.
Dhaarna TandonDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK.
Ashley-Louise TealeDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK.
Natasha TylerNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (PSTRC), Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Lisa WoodDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsensus on what outcomes should be included in trials of psychological therapies on acute psychiatric inpatient wards is currently lacking. Inclusion of different viewpoints, including service user perspectives, is crucial in ensuring that future trials measure outcomes which are meaningful and important. Development of a Core Outcome Set (COS), a minimum standardised set of outcomes to be measured and reported, would help improve synthesis and interpretation of clinical trial data in this area.

methodsStage 1 of the COS development involved compiling a comprehensive long-list of outcomes from key sources including i) a systematic review of outcomes from published trials, ii) online survey of key stakeholders (service users, carers, healthcare professionals, researchers, and end users of research), iii) qualitative interviews with service users and carers. Stage 2 involved stakeholder groups short-listing the outcomes using consensus methods (e-Delphi survey). The final outcome set was derived from the short-list at a consensus meeting of stakeholders, facilitated by an Independent Chair.

resultsA long-list of 68 outcomes was compiled from the systematic review (n = 30 trials), online stakeholder survey (n = 100 participants) and qualitative interviews (n = 15 participants). Fifty stakeholders took part in the e-Delphi study, where the long-list was cut down to a short-list of 12 outcomes over 2 rounds. Nine stakeholders took part in the final consensus meeting, and after some outcomes were removed and/or amalgamated, a final set of 6 outcomes was recommended for inclusion in the COS. These were Ability to Cope, Hopefulness, Quality of Life, Psychosis Symptoms, Mood, and Self-Harm Behaviours.

conclusionsWidespread future adoption of the COS will reduce research waste by ensuring that outcomes are more easily comparable across trials, and that the full range of stakeholder priorities are represented in trial outcomes. This makes it more likely that effective therapies will be identified in a timely fashion and successfully implemented in routine clinical practice. The final 6-outcome COS should be feasible to implement given the need keep participant burden to a minimum in inpatient trials. Further work is needed to make recommendations for the best outcome measurement instruments to use, including the use of patient-reported outcomes alongside clinician-rated measures.

trial registrationNot applicable.

Indexed as

InpatientsOutcome Assessment, Health CareClinical Trials as TopicConsensusDelphi TechniqueHumansMental DisordersPsychiatric Department, HospitalPsychotherapyStakeholder ParticipationClinical TrialConsensusInpatientsMeasures

Identifiers

PMID39563270
PMCPMC11575046

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.