A systematic review of studies reporting the development of Core Outcome Sets for use in routine care



Kearney, Anna ORCID: 0000-0003-1404-3370, Gargon, Elizabeth, Mitchell, James ORCID: 0000-0002-6465-0382, Callaghan, Stephen, Yameen, Farheen, Williamson, Paula ORCID: 0000-0001-9802-6636 and Dodd, Susanna ORCID: 0000-0003-2851-3337
(2023) A systematic review of studies reporting the development of Core Outcome Sets for use in routine care. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 158. pp. 34-43.

[thumbnail of Supplementary file_Additional Tables.docx] Text
Supplementary file_Additional Tables.docx - Supporting information

Download (38kB)
[thumbnail of Supplementary file_Search information.docx] Text
Supplementary file_Search information.docx - Supporting information

Download (18kB)
[thumbnail of COS routine care SR_revised_clean.docx] Text
COS routine care SR_revised_clean.docx - Author Accepted Manuscript

Download (314kB)
[thumbnail of Supplementary file_Included studies.docx] Text
Supplementary file_Included studies.docx - Supporting information

Download (534kB)

Abstract

Objectives: Core outcome sets (COS) represent the minimum health outcomes to be measured for a given health condition. Interest is growing in using COS within routine care to support delivery of patient-focused care. This review aims to systematically map COS developed for routine care to understand their scope, stakeholder involvement, and development methods. Methods: Medline (Ovid), Scopus, and Web of Science Core collection were searched for studies reporting development of COS for routine care. Data on scope, methods, and stakeholder groups were analyzed in subgroups defined by setting. Results: Screening 25,301 records identified 262 COS: 164 for routine care only and 98 for routine care and research. Nearly half of the COS (112/254, 44%) were developed with patients, alongside input from experts in registries, insurance, legal, outcomes measurement, and performance management. Research publications were often searched to generate an initial list of outcomes (115/198, 58%) with few searching routine health records (47/198, 24%). Conclusion: An increasing number of COS is being developed for routine care. Although involvement of patient stakeholders has increased in recent years, further improvements are needed. Methodology and scope are broadly similar to COS for research but implementation of the final set is a greater consideration during development.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: Core outcome sets, Routine care, Healthcare evaluation, Health outcomes, COMET, Clinical audit, Value -based healthcare, Patient -centered, outcome measures
Divisions: Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences > Institute of Population Health
Depositing User: Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited: 21 Mar 2023 08:27
Last Modified: 11 Oct 2023 13:17
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.03.011
Related URLs:
URI: https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3169128