LIVIVO - The Search Portal for Life Sciences

zur deutschen Oberfläche wechseln
Advanced search

Search results

Result 1 - 5 of total 5

Search options

  1. Article: Bristol is failing again: my advice on Bristol: consider another hospital.

    Von Hildebrand, Maria

    The Health service journal

    2014  Volume 123, Issue 6391, Page(s) 16–17

    MeSH term(s) Cardiac Care Facilities/standards ; Cardiac Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data ; Cardiac Surgical Procedures/mortality ; Cardiac Surgical Procedures/standards ; Child ; Child Mortality ; England/epidemiology ; Hospital Mortality ; Hospitals, Pediatric/standards ; Hospitals, Pediatric/statistics & numerical data ; Humans ; Medical Errors/mortality ; Patient Safety ; Quality Assurance, Health Care/methods ; Quality Assurance, Health Care/standards ; Standard of Care ; State Medicine/standards ; State Medicine/statistics & numerical data
    Language English
    Publishing date 2014-03-21
    Publishing country England
    Document type Journal Article
    ZDB-ID 632799-0
    ISSN 0952-2271 ; 0300-8347
    ISSN 0952-2271 ; 0300-8347
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  2. Article ; Online: Putting patients at the heart of health-care research.

    Calvert, Melanie / Kyte, Derek / von Hildebrand, Maria / King, Madeleine / Moher, David

    Lancet (London, England)

    2015  Volume 385, Issue 9973, Page(s) 1073–1074

    MeSH term(s) Guidelines as Topic ; Health Services Research/standards ; Humans ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care)/standards ; Patient Outcome Assessment ; Research Design/standards
    Language English
    Publishing date 2015-03-21
    Publishing country England
    Document type Letter
    ZDB-ID 3306-6
    ISSN 1474-547X ; 0023-7507 ; 0140-6736
    ISSN (online) 1474-547X
    ISSN 0023-7507 ; 0140-6736
    DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60599-2
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  3. Article ; Online: Ethical Considerations for the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Research: The PRO Ethics Guidelines.

    Cruz Rivera, Samantha / Aiyegbusi, Olalekan Lee / Ives, Jonathan / Draper, Heather / Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca / Ells, Carolyn / Hunn, Amanda / Scott, Jane A / Fernandez, Conrad V / Dickens, Andrew P / Anderson, Nicola / Bhatnagar, Vishal / Bottomley, Andrew / Campbell, Lisa / Collett, Clive / Collis, Philip / Craig, Kathrine / Davies, Hugh / Golub, Robert /
    Gosden, Lesley / Gnanasakthy, Ari / Haf Davies, Elin / von Hildebrand, Maria / Lord, Janet M / Mahendraratnam, Nirosha / Miyaji, Tempei / Morel, Thomas / Monteiro, Joao / Zwisler, Ann-Dorthe Olsen / Peipert, John Devin / Roydhouse, Jessica / Stover, Angela M / Wilson, Roger / Yap, Christina / Calvert, Melanie J

    JAMA

    2022  Volume 327, Issue 19, Page(s) 1910–1919

    Abstract: Importance: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely care tailored to individual needs. ... ...

    Abstract Importance: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely care tailored to individual needs. However, several ethical issues have been raised in relation to PRO use.
    Objective: To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research.
    Evidence review: The PRO ethics guidelines were developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guideline development framework. This included a systematic review of the ethical implications of PROs in clinical research. The databases MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, AMED, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2020. The keywords patient reported outcome* and ethic* were used to search the databases. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening before full-text screening to determine eligibility. The review was supplemented by the SPIRIT-PRO Extension recommendations for trial protocol. Subsequently, a 2-round international Delphi process (n = 96 participants; May and August 2021) and a consensus meeting (n = 25 international participants; October 2021) were held. Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were provided with a summary of the Delphi process results and information on whether the items aligned with existing ethical guidance.
    Findings: Twenty-three items were considered in the first round of the Delphi process: 6 relevant candidate items from the systematic review and 17 additional items drawn from the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. Ninety-six international participants voted on the relevant importance of each item for inclusion in ethical guidelines and 12 additional items were recommended for inclusion in round 2 of the Delphi (35 items in total). Fourteen items were recommended for inclusion at the consensus meeting (n = 25 participants). The final wording of the PRO ethical guidelines was agreed on by consensus meeting participants with input from 6 additional individuals. Included items focused on PRO-specific ethical issues relating to research rationale, objectives, eligibility requirements, PRO concepts and domains, PRO assessment schedules, sample size, PRO data monitoring, barriers to PRO completion, participant acceptability and burden, administration of PRO questionnaires for participants who are unable to self-report PRO data, input on PRO strategy by patient partners or members of the public, avoiding missing data, and dissemination plans.
    Conclusions and relevance: The PRO ethics guidelines provide recommendations for ethical issues that should be addressed in PRO clinical research. Addressing ethical issues of PRO clinical research has the potential to ensure high-quality PRO data while minimizing participant risk, burden, and harm and protecting participant and researcher welfare.
    MeSH term(s) Biomedical Research/ethics ; Consensus ; Delphi Technique ; Ethics, Clinical ; Humans ; Morals ; Patient Reported Outcome Measures ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Research Design ; Research Report
    Language English
    Publishing date 2022-05-17
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Journal Article ; Systematic Review
    ZDB-ID 2958-0
    ISSN 1538-3598 ; 0254-9077 ; 0002-9955 ; 0098-7484
    ISSN (online) 1538-3598
    ISSN 0254-9077 ; 0002-9955 ; 0098-7484
    DOI 10.1001/jama.2022.6421
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  4. Article ; Online: SPIRIT-PRO Extension explanation and elaboration: guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials.

    Calvert, Melanie / King, Madeleine / Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca / Aiyegbusi, Olalekan / Kyte, Derek / Slade, Anita / Chan, An-Wen / Basch, E / Bell, Jill / Bennett, Antonia / Bhatnagar, Vishal / Blazeby, Jane / Bottomley, Andrew / Brown, Julia / Brundage, Michael / Campbell, Lisa / Cappelleri, Joseph C / Draper, Heather / Dueck, Amylou C /
    Ells, Carolyn / Frank, Lori / Golub, Robert M / Griebsch, Ingolf / Haywood, Kirstie / Hunn, Amanda / King-Kallimanis, Bellinda / Martin, Laura / Mitchell, Sandra / Morel, Thomas / Nelson, Linda / Norquist, Josephine / O'Connor, Daniel / Palmer, Michael / Patrick, Donald / Price, Gary / Regnault, Antoine / Retzer, Ameeta / Revicki, Dennis / Scott, Jane / Stephens, Richard / Turner, Grace / Valakas, Antonia / Velikova, Galina / von Hildebrand, Maria / Walker, Anita / Wenzel, Lari

    BMJ open

    2021  Volume 11, Issue 6, Page(s) e045105

    Abstract: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide valuable evidence on the impact of disease and treatment on patients' symptoms, function and quality of life. High-quality PRO data from trials can inform shared decision-making, ... ...

    Abstract Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide valuable evidence on the impact of disease and treatment on patients' symptoms, function and quality of life. High-quality PRO data from trials can inform shared decision-making, regulatory and economic analyses and health policy. Recent evidence suggests the PRO content of past trial protocols was often incomplete or unclear, leading to research waste. To address this issue, international, consensus-based, PRO-specific guidelines were developed: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-PRO Extension. The SPIRIT-PRO Extension is a 16-item checklist which aims to improve the content and quality of aspects of clinical trial protocols relating to PRO data collection to minimise research waste, and ultimately better inform patient-centred care. This SPIRIT-PRO explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper provides information to promote understanding and facilitate uptake of the recommended checklist items, including a comprehensive protocol template. For each SPIRIT-PRO item, we provide a detailed description, one or more examples from existing trial protocols and supporting empirical evidence of the item's importance. We recommend this paper and protocol template be used alongside the SPIRIT 2013 and SPIRIT-PRO Extension paper to optimise the transparent development and review of trial protocols with PROs.
    MeSH term(s) Checklist ; Humans ; Patient Reported Outcome Measures ; Quality of Life ; Research Design ; Research Report
    Language English
    Publishing date 2021-06-30
    Publishing country England
    Document type Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't ; Review
    ZDB-ID 2599832-8
    ISSN 2044-6055 ; 2044-6055
    ISSN (online) 2044-6055
    ISSN 2044-6055
    DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045105
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  5. Article ; Online: Guidelines for Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO Extension.

    Calvert, Melanie / Kyte, Derek / Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca / Slade, Anita / Chan, An-Wen / King, Madeleine T / Hunn, Amanda / Bottomley, Andrew / Regnault, Antoine / Ells, Carolyn / O'Connor, Daniel / Revicki, Dennis / Patrick, Donald / Altman, Doug / Basch, Ethan / Velikova, Galina / Price, Gary / Draper, Heather / Blazeby, Jane /
    Scott, Jane / Coast, Joanna / Norquist, Josephine / Brown, Julia / Haywood, Kirstie / Johnson, Laura Lee / Campbell, Lisa / Frank, Lori / von Hildebrand, Maria / Brundage, Michael / Palmer, Michael / Kluetz, Paul / Stephens, Richard / Golub, Robert M / Mitchell, Sandra / Groves, Trish

    JAMA

    2018  Volume 319, Issue 5, Page(s) 483–494

    Abstract: Importance: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials can provide valuable evidence to inform shared decision making, labeling claims, clinical guidelines, and health policy; however, the PRO content of clinical trial protocols is often ... ...

    Abstract Importance: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials can provide valuable evidence to inform shared decision making, labeling claims, clinical guidelines, and health policy; however, the PRO content of clinical trial protocols is often suboptimal. The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement was published in 2013 and aims to improve the completeness of trial protocols by providing evidence-based recommendations for the minimum set of items to be addressed, but it does not provide PRO-specific guidance.
    Objective: To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific protocol guidance (the SPIRIT-PRO Extension).
    Design, setting, and participants: The SPIRIT-PRO Extension was developed following the Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's methodological framework for guideline development. This included (1) a systematic review of existing PRO-specific protocol guidance to generate a list of potential PRO-specific protocol items (published in 2014); (2) refinements to the list and removal of duplicate items by the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Protocol Checklist Taskforce; (3) an international stakeholder survey of clinical trial research personnel, PRO methodologists, health economists, psychometricians, patient advocates, funders, industry representatives, journal editors, policy makers, ethicists, and researchers responsible for evidence synthesis (distributed by 38 international partner organizations in October 2016); (4) an international Delphi exercise (n = 137 invited; October 2016 to February 2017); and (5) consensus meeting (n = 30 invited; May 2017). Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were informed of the results of the Delphi exercise and given data from structured reviews evaluating the PRO protocol content of 3 defined samples of trial protocols.
    Results: The systematic review identified 162 PRO-specific protocol recommendations from 54 sources. The ISOQOL Taskforce (n = 21) reduced this to 56 items, which were considered by 138 international stakeholder survey participants and 99 Delphi panelists. The final wording of the SPIRIT-PRO Extension was agreed on at a consensus meeting (n = 29 participants) and reviewed by external group of experts during a consultation period. Eleven extensions and 5 elaborations to the SPIRIT 2013 checklist were recommended for inclusion in clinical trial protocols in which PROs are a primary or key secondary outcome. Extension items focused on PRO-specific issues relating to the trial rationale, objectives, eligibility criteria, concepts used to evaluate the intervention, time points for assessment, PRO instrument selection and measurement properties, data collection plan, translation to other languages, proxy completion, strategies to minimize missing data, and whether PRO data will be monitored during the study to inform clinical care.
    Conclusions and relevance: The SPIRIT-PRO guidelines provide recommendations for items that should be addressed and included in clinical trial protocols in which PROs are a primary or key secondary outcome. Improved design of clinical trials including PROs could help ensure high-quality data that may inform patient-centered care.
    MeSH term(s) Clinical Protocols/standards ; Clinical Trials as Topic/standards ; Decision Making ; Guidelines as Topic ; Humans ; Patient Reported Outcome Measures
    Language English
    Publishing date 2018-02-08
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
    ZDB-ID 2958-0
    ISSN 1538-3598 ; 0254-9077 ; 0002-9955 ; 0098-7484
    ISSN (online) 1538-3598
    ISSN 0254-9077 ; 0002-9955 ; 0098-7484
    DOI 10.1001/jama.2017.21903
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

To top