Consensus processes in core outcome set studies

COS developers use different methods to gain consensus on what outcomes are most important:

When preparing for the survey, public research partners (PRPs) can collaborate with the research team to consider the following:

Who should take part i.e. the eligibility criteria for the survey?

What information patients might like to see on your website / newsletters?
How easy is it to find information on the website (if your COS has one) and is this participant information useful and easy to understand?
How readable and understandable the newsletters are (if these are to be used in your COS study)?
How readable and understandable the patient information and consent forms are for your COS study?
How understandable are the outcome definitions?
How will patients react to the outcomes?
What ethical issues there may be with patient participation in your COS survey?
How accessible is the COS survey (for example, is the font size adequate, are the colours suitable for someone with colour blindness, is the scoring system suitable for the target population, for example if children are participating etc)?
How understandable the COS instructions are for each round of the survey?
Will patients know which perspective they are to use when completing each round of the Delphi survey (for example, are they to vote from their personal perspective or considering the perspectives of the wider patient group)?
How understandable is the feedback that we are providing between rounds in a Delphi survey, including any graphs etc.

Is there likely to be a large patient research burden in the intended patient community at the time we plan to run the COS study (e.g. large-scale, clinical trial / research prioritisation study etc. running at the same time as your COS study)
How will we reach a diverse range of patients to participate in the COS study?
Whether there are specific issues to consider when recruiting particular patient groups in the COS study e.g. patients with cognitive / additional learning needs / visual or auditory impairment.
How best to raise awareness about the COS study to the appropriate patient group(s)?
How best to maintain patient interest in the COS study over time?
How to address potential recruitment challenges from a patient perspective?

When preparing for a consensus meeting, public research partners (PRPs) can collaborate with the research team to consider:

How readable and understandable the participant information and consent forms are for the COS consensus meeting, e.g. what to expect in the meeting?
What ethical issues there may be with patient participation in the COS meeting? E.g. in some conditions, especially in rare disease, the patient or caregiver’s clinician may be in the room, have you considered with patients how this may make participants feel?
How understandable the information is about how to get to the venue / join the meeting remotely?
How accessible the COS meeting will be? (e.g. lifts available, prayer room, breastfeeding facilities, suitable seating, appropriate number and length of breaks, clinical room available, accessible toilets)
How well is the information on accessibility of the COS meeting communicated to patients in the participant information sheet?
How understandable the intended patient pre-meeting instructions are? (including for those with additional needs, as relevant)
How best to cater for any dietary needs throughout the meeting, especially any issues relevant to the condition?

Access a PDF of the questions on this page here.

The Delphi survey – a plain-language summary – developed by the COMET Initiative
Consensus meeting animation developed by Bristol Centre for Surgical Research
Nominal Group Technique – a plain-language summary – developed by the COMET Initiative
Populations and sampling – This resource has been developed by Understanding Health Research to explain populations and sampling in plain-language.

The Delphi survey – a plain-language summary – developed by the COMET Initiative
Consensus meeting animation developed by Bristol Centre for Surgical Research
Nominal Group Technique – a plain-language summary – developed by the COMET Initiative
Populations and sampling – This resource has been developed by Understanding Health Research to explain populations and sampling in plain-language.
Patient and public involvement in research groups – Guidance for Chairs.
NIHR – A brief guide to patient and public involvement and qualitative methods within health and social care research.
COMET PoPPIE guidance on Ethics and COS studies https://www.comet-initiative.org/Patients/Ethics
PPI reflection log