Angela Ju

Establishing Core Outcome Domains in Hemodialysis: Report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology–Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Consensus Workshop

Evidence-informed decision making in clinical care and policy in nephrology is undermined by trials that selectively report a large number of heterogeneous outcomes, many of which are not patient centered. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Initiative convened an international consensus workshop on November 7, 2015, to discuss the identification and implementation of a potential core outcome set for all trials in hemodialysis. The purpose of this article is to report qualitative analyses of the workshop discussions, describing the key aspects to consider when establishing core outcomes in trials involving patients on hemodialysis therapy. Key stakeholders including 8 patients/caregivers and 47 health professionals (nephrologists, policymakers, industry, and researchers) attended the workshop. Attendees suggested that identifying core outcomes required equitable stakeholder engagement to ensure relevance across patient populations, flexibility to consider evolving priorities over time, deconstruction of language and meaning for conceptual consistency and clarity, understanding of potential overlap and associations between outcomes, and an assessment of applicability to the range of interventions in hemodialysis. For implementation, they proposed that core outcomes must have simple, inexpensive, and validated outcome measures that could be used in clinical care (quality indicators) and trials (including pragmatic trials) and endorsement by regulatory agencies. Integrating these recommendations may foster acceptance and optimize the uptake and translation of core outcomes in hemodialysis, leading to more informative research, for better treatment and improved patient outcomes.

Toward Establishing Core Outcome Domains For Trials in Kidney Transplantation: Report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Kidney Transplantation Consensus Workshops

Background Treatment decisions in kidney transplantation requires patients and clinicians to weigh the benefits and harms of a broad range of medical and surgical interventions, but the heterogeneity and lack of patient-relevant outcomes across trials in transplantation makes these trade-offs uncertain, thus, the need for a core outcome set that reflects stakeholder priorities. Methods We convened 2 international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Kidney Transplantation stakeholder consensus workshops in Boston (17 patients/caregivers; 52 health professionals) and Hong Kong (10 patients/caregivers; 45 health professionals). In facilitated breakout groups, participants discussed the development and implementation of core outcome domains for trials in kidney transplantation. Results Seven themes were identified. Reinforcing the paramount importance of graft outcomes encompassed the prevailing dread of dialysis, distilling the meaning of graft function, and acknowledging the terrifying and ambiguous terminology of rejection. Reflecting critical trade-offs between graft health and medical comorbidities was fundamental. Contextualizing mortality explained discrepancies in the prioritization of death among stakeholders—inevitability of death (patients), preventing premature death (clinicians), and ensuring safety (regulators). Imperative to capture patient-reported outcomes was driven by making explicit patient priorities, fulfilling regulatory requirements, and addressing life participation. Specificity to transplant; feasibility and pragmatism (long-term impacts and responsiveness to interventions); and recognizing gradients of severity within outcome domains were raised as considerations. Conclusions Stakeholders support the inclusion of graft health, mortality, cardiovascular disease, infection, cancer, and patient-reported outcomes (ie, life participation) in a core outcomes set. Addressing ambiguous terminology and feasibility is needed in establishing these core outcome domains for trials in kidney transplantation.

Children's Experiences of Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.

CONTEXT: Epilepsy is a common and severe neurologic disease associated with increased mortality, seizure-related injury, and adverse psychological and quality-of-life outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To describe the perspectives of children and adolescents with epilepsy. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception to August 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Qualitative studies on children’s experiences of epilepsy. DATA EXTRACTION: Results from primary studies. We used thematic synthesis to analyze the findings. RESULTS: Forty-three articles involving 951 participants aged 3 to 21 years across 21 countries were included. We identified 6 themes: loss of bodily control (being overtaken, susceptibility to physical harm, fragility of the brain, alertness to mortality, incapacitating fatigue), loss of privacy (declarative disease, humiliating involuntary function, unwanted special attention, social embarrassment of medicine-taking), inescapable inferiority and discrimination (vulnerability to prejudice, inability to achieve academically, consciousness of abnormality, parental shame, limiting social freedom), therapeutic burden and futility (unattainable closure, financial burden, overwhelming life disruption, exhaustion from trialing therapies, insurmountable side effects, awaiting a fabled remission), navigating health care (empowerment through information, valuing empathetic and responsive care, unexpected necessity of transition, fragmented and inconsistent care), and recontextualizing to regain normality (distinguishing disease from identity, taking ownership, gaining perspective and maturity, social and spiritual connectedness). LIMITATIONS: Non-English articles were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Children with epilepsy experience vulnerability, disempowerment, and discrimination. Repeated treatment failure can raise doubt about the attainment of remission. Addressing stigma, future independence, and fear of death may improve the overall well-being of children with epilepsy.

Considerations and Challenges in Selecting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Clinical Trials in Nephrology

The need to improve patient-centered care has led to a growing recognition among clinicians, researchers, and policymakers that clinical trials must include outcomes important to patients, such as quality of life ([1][1]). Trials that measure outcomes that are meaningful to patients will ensure that

Establishing a Core Outcome Measure for Fatigue in Patients on Hemodialysis: A Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology–Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Consensus Workshop Report

Fatigue is one of the most highly prioritized outcomes for patients and clinicians, but remains infrequently and inconsistently reported across trials in hemodialysis. We convened an international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) consensus workshop with stakeholders to discuss the development and implementation of a core outcome measure for fatigue. 15 patients/caregivers and 42 health professionals (clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and industry representatives) from 9 countries participated in breakout discussions. Transcripts were analyzed thematically. 4 themes for a core outcome measure emerged. Drawing attention to a distinct and all-encompassing symptom was explicitly recognizing fatigue as a multifaceted symptom unique to hemodialysis. Emphasizing the pervasive impact of fatigue on life participation justified the focus on how fatigue severely impaired the patients ability to do usual activities. Ensuring relevance and accuracy in measuring fatigue would facilitate shared decision making about treatment. Minimizing burden of administration meant avoiding the cognitive burden, additional time, and resources required to use the measure. A core outcome measure that is simple, is short, and includes a focus on the severity of the impact of fatigue on life participation may facilitate consistent and meaningful measurement of fatigue in all trials to inform decision making and care of patients receiving hemodialysis.

Men’s perspectives of prostate cancer screening: A systematic review of qualitative studies

Background Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer in men. Screening for prostate cancer is widely accepted; however concerns regarding the harms outweighing the benefits of screening exist. Although patient’s play a pivotal role in the decision making process, men may not be aware of the controversies regarding prostate cancer screening. Therefore we aimed to describe men’s attitudes, beliefs and experiences of prostate cancer screening. Methods Systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies on men’s perspectives of prostate cancer screening. Electronic databases and reference lists were searched to October 2016. Findings Sixty studies involving 3,029 men aged from 18–89 years, who had been screened for prostate cancer by Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) or Digital Rectal Examination (DRE) and not screened, across eight countries were included. Five themes were identified: Social prompting (trusting professional opinion, motivation from family and friends, proximity and prominence of cancer); gaining decisional confidence (overcoming fears, survival imperative, peace of mind, mental preparation, prioritising wellbeing); preserving masculinity (bodily invasion, losing sexuality, threatening manhood, medical avoidance); avoiding the unknown and uncertainties (taboo of cancer-related death, lacking tangible cause, physiological and symptomatic obscurity, ambiguity of the procedure, confusing controversies); and prohibitive costs. Conclusions Men are willing to participate in prostate cancer screening to prevent cancer and gain reassurance about their health, particularly when supported or prompted by their social networks or healthcare providers. However, to do so they needed to mentally overcome fears of losing their masculinity and accept the intrusiveness of screening, the ambiguities about the necessity and the potential for substantial costs. Addressing the concerns and priorities of men may facilitate informed decisions about prostate cancer screening and improve patient satisfaction and outcomes.

Establishing a Core Outcome Measure for Life Participation: A Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology – Kidney Transplantation (SONG-Tx) Consensus Workshop Report.

SONG-Tx. Background Graft loss, a critically important outcome for transplant recipients, is variably defined and measured and incompletely reported in trials. We convened a consensus workshop on establishing a core outcome measure for graft loss for all trials in kidney transplantation. Methods Twenty-five kidney transplant recipients/caregivers and 33 health professionals from eight countries participated. Transcripts were analyzed thematically. Results Five themes were identified. “Graft loss as a continuum” conceptualizesgraft loss as a process, but requiring an endpoint defined as a discrete event. In “defining an event with precision and accuracy,” loss of graft function requiring chronic dialysis(minimum 90 days)provided an objective and practical definition; re-transplant would capture pre-emptive transplantation; relisting was readily measured but would overestimate graft loss; and allograft nephrectomy was redundant in being preceded by dialysis. However, the thresholds for renal replacement therapy varied. Conservative management was regarded as too ambiguous and complexto use routinely. “Distinguishing death-censored graft loss” would ensure clarity and meaningfulness in interpreting results. “Consistent reporting for decision-making” by specifying time points and metrics (i.e. time to event) was suggested. “Ease of ascertainment and data collection” of the outcome from registries could support use of registry data to efficiently extend follow-up of trial participants. Conclusions A practical and meaningful core outcome measure for graft loss may be defined as chronic dialysis or re-transplant, and distinguished from loss due to death. Consistent reporting of graft loss using standardized metrics and time points may improve the contribution of trials to decision-making in kidney transplantation.

Clinicians’ and researchers’ perspectives on establishing and implementing core outcomes in haemodialysis: semistructured interview study

Objectives To describe the perspectives of clinicians and researchers on identifying, establishing and implementing core outcomes in haemodialysis and their expected impact. Design Face-to-face, semistructured interviews; thematic analysis. Stetting Twenty-seven centres across nine countries. Participants Fifty-eight nephrologists (42 (72%) who were also triallists). Results We identified six themes: reflecting direct patient relevance and impact (survival as the primary goal of dialysis, enabling well-being and functioning, severe consequences of comorbidities and complications, indicators of treatment success, universal relevance, stakeholder consensus); amenable and responsive to interventions (realistic and possible to intervene on, differentiating between treatments); reflective of economic burden on healthcare; feasibility of implementation (clarity and consistency in definition, easily measurable, requiring minimal resources, creating a cultural shift, aversion to intensifying bureaucracy, allowing justifiable exceptions); authoritative inducement and directive (endorsement for legitimacy, necessity of buy-in from dialysis providers, incentivising uptake); instituting patient-centredness (explicitly addressing patient-important outcomes, reciprocating trial participation, improving comparability of interventions for decision-making, driving quality improvement and compelling a focus on quality of life). Conclusions Nephrologists emphasised that core outcomes should be relevant to patients, amenable to change, feasible to implement and supported by stakeholder organisations. They expected core outcomes would improve patient-centred care and outcomes.

Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology-Polycystic Kidney Disease (SONG-PKD): study protocol for establishing a core outcome set in polycystic kidney disease

BackgroundAutosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is the most common potentially life threatening inherited kidney disease and is responsible for 5–10% of cases of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Cystic kidneys may enlarge up to 20 times the weight of a normal kidney due to the growth of renal cysts, and patients with ADPKD have an increased risk of morbidity, premature mortality, and other life-time complications including renal and hepatic cyst and urinary tract infection, intracranial aneurysm, diverticulosis, and kidney pain which impair quality of life. Despite some therapeutic advances and the growing number of clinical trials in ADPKD, the outcomes that are relevant to patients and clinicians, such as symptoms and quality of life, are infrequently and inconsistently reported. This potentially limits the contribution of trials to inform evidence-based decision-making. The Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology—Polycystic Kidney Disease (SONG-PKD) project aims to establish a consensus-based set of core outcomes for trials in PKD (with an initial focus on ADPKD but inclusive of all stages) that patients and health professionals identify as critically important.MethodsThe five phases of SONG-PKD are: a systematic review to identify outcomes that have been reported in existing PKD trials; focus groups with nominal group technique with patients and caregivers to identify, rank, and describe reasons for their choices; qualitative stakeholder interviews with health professionals to elicit individual values and perspectives on outcomes for trials involving patients with PKD; an international three-round Delphi survey with all stakeholder groups (including patients, caregivers, healthcare providers, policy makers, researchers, and industry) to gain consensus on critically important core outcome domains; and a consensus workshop to review and establish a set of core outcome domains and measures for trials in PKD.DiscussionThe SONG-PKD core outcome set is aimed at improving the consistency and completeness of outcome reporting across ADPKD trials, leading to improvements in the reliability and relevance of trial-based evidence to inform decisions about treatment and ultimately improve the care and outcomes for people with ADPKD.

Research priorities for childhood chronic conditions: a workshop report

Background Chronic conditions are the leading cause of mortality, morbidity and disability in children. However, children and caregivers are rarely involved in identifying research priorities, which may limit the value of research in supporting patient-centred practice and policy. Objective To identify priorities of patients, caregivers and health professionals for research in childhood chronic conditions and describe the reason for their choices. Setting An Australian paediatric hospital and health consumer organisations. Methods Recruited participants (n=73) included patients aged 8 to 14 years with a chronic condition (n=3), parents/caregivers of children aged 0 to 18 years with a chronic condition (n=19), representatives from consumer organisations (n=13) and health professionals including clinicians, researches (n=38) identified and discussed research priorities. Transcripts were thematically analysed. Results Seventy-eight research questions were identified. Five themes underpinned participants’ priorities: maintaining a sense of normality (enabling participation in school, supporting social functioning, promoting understanding and acceptance), empowering self-management and partnership in care (overcoming communication barriers, gaining knowledge and skills, motivation for treatment adherence, making informed decisions, access and understanding of complementary and alternative therapies),strengthening ability to cope (learning to have a positive outlook, preparing for home care management, transitioning to adult services), broadening focus to family (supporting sibling well-being, parental resilience and financial loss, alleviating caregiver burden), and improving quality and scope of health and social care (readdressing variability and inequities, preventing disease complications and treatment side effects, identifying risk factors, improving long-term outcomes, harnessing technology, integrating multidisciplinary services). Conclusion Research priorities identified by children, caregivers and health professionals emphasise a focus on life participation, psychosocial well-being, impact on family and quality of care. These priorities may be used by funding and policy organisations in establishing a paediatric research agenda.