Experiences of core outcome set developers on including stakeholders from low- and middle-income countries
An online survey
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19590858 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jamlick Karumbi (0000-0003-0848-7821, University of Liverpool, corresponding author), Sarah L Gorst (0000-0002-7818-9646, University of Liverpool, corresponding author), David Gathara (0000-0002-0958-0713, Kenya Medical Research Institute, corresponding author), Bridget Young (0000-0001-6041-9901, University of Liverpool, corresponding author), Paula Williamson (0000-0001-9802-6636, University of Liverpool, corresponding author) |
| Editors | Anna Davies (0000-0001-7057-1480) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue | 6 |
| Pages | e0003365 |
| Publication date | 2024-06-20 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | PLOS Global Public Health (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2767-3375 • E-ISSN: 2767-3375 |
| Publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003365 |
| PMID | 38900810 |
| OpenAlex | W4399849914 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 22 |
Core outcome set (COS) development and use enhances comparability of research findings. It may also enhance the translation of research into practice and reduce research waste. However, there is limited involvement of stakeholders from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in COS development and use. In this study, we explored the experiences of researchers in COS development projects who included stakeholders from LMICs. Online survey conducted in English of 70 COS developers from HICs who had included LMIC stakeholders in the process of developing a COS, published before the end of 2019. Respondents were identified from the COMET database and sent a link to the survey via a personalised email. Quantitative data were analysed using simple descriptive statistics. Qualitative data analysis was based on qualitative content analysis. There were 37 respondents yielding a 53% overall response rate. Analysis was limited to the responses related to 29 COS developed in the years 2015 to 2019, to reduce the potential for recall bias for earlier COS. Most respondents 20/29 (69%) were researchers. Determining ‘what to measure’ was reported as the most common stage of inclusion of LMIC stakeholders. Respondents cited (24/29, 83%) their ongoing collaborations with LMIC stakeholders such as clinicians or researchers as their main rationale for including LMICs stakeholders and reported that translation of the Delphi into languages other than English may be useful to enhance wider stakeholder participation. Involvement of LMIC stakeholders only in the later stages of COS development, lack of adequate resources to support their involvement, and lack of networks and contacts were thought to limit fuller participation of stakeholders from LMICs. To improve the involvement of LMIC stakeholders in COS development and use, COS developers need to raise awareness on the utility of COS. The need for and feasibility of translation into multiple languages warrants further discussion
Business · Comparability · Delphi method · Descriptive statistics · Knowledge management · Medical education · Political science · Public relations · Qualitative property · Stakeholder · Computer Science · Delphi Technique in Research · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Medicine · Psychology
Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias
Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence
Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires
Qualitative content analysis in nursing research
Awareness and experiences on core outcome set development and use amongst stakeholders from low- and middle- income countries
| Highly cited | No |
|---|