Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for the evaluation of shared decision-making interventions in healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process whereby patients are supported to reach decisions about their healthcare in collaboration with healthcare professionals. International policy and clinical guidelines highlight the ethical imperative of SDM and recommend SDM for many healthcare decisions and contexts. However, despite decades of SDM research, the impact of implementing SDM interventions within health care remains uncertain. High-quality health technology assessment (HTA) requires an understanding of how interventions to facilitate the adoption and implementation of SDM (e.g., through the use of patient decision aids, decision coaching, question prompt lists, training and feedback, or service changes) impact clinical and health service outcomes. Yet, synthesis of the existing literature is hindered by substantial heterogeneity in the evaluation of interventions to facilitate SDM. A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardised set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all effectiveness studies. There is a COS for SDM in the context of rheumatology (rheuCOS-SDM), designed for use in research studies (e.g., clinical trials or observational studies) evaluating the impact of SDM interventions on clinical outcomes for patients. It is unclear, however, whether the outcome domains identified within a rheumatology context are relevant, comprehensive, or comprehensible when applied to a variety of SDM interventions tailored to and interacting with a range of patient populations, healthcare settings and contexts. The aim of this study is to develop a generic COS for evaluating the impact of SDM interventions on various outcomes. Outcomes for consideration may include assessments of the behaviours and experiences of patients, important others (e.g., carers or relatives) and health professionals, the dynamics within patient-professional interactions, health outcomes for individuals and for the wider population, and the cost-effectiveness of care. The broad scope of the COS will ensure its applicability and utility within diverse healthcare contexts and enable the synthesis of evidence to draw clear conclusions about the impact of SDM interventions, to influence healthcare policy. We define this new, comprehensive COS as the COS-SDM. Methods and Analysis Through engagement with key interest holders (including patients and members of the public, clinicians and academics), we agreed on the scope of the COS and to adhere to the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) handbook and Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) guidelines. This will involve production of a ‘long’ (comprehensive) list of candidate outcome domains (using evidence synthesis, a COS developed in the context of Rheumatology, and qualitative interviews with interest holders internationally), prioritisation of a ‘short’ (refined) list of core outcome domains (utilising a sequential two-round international online Delphi), and reaching consensus on the final outcome set (through international meetings, applying modified nominal group techniques and predefined criteria for agreement). Ethics and Dissemination Research ethics approval has been granted in the UK (University of Bristol Faculty Ethics Committee, ref: 7741; University of Exeter Faculty Ethics Committee, ref: 8207624). The final COS will be disseminated by presentation at international conferences and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Further dissemination is planned through our patient/public advisory group, professional networks, and executive group channels, to publicise the COS to patient groups, funders, journal editors, international regulatory bodies and HTA boards. Registration This project has been registered in the COMET database ( www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/3586 ).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".