DEVELOPING A MINIMUM DATA SET, KNOWN AS A CORE OUTCOME SET, FOR IVF RESEARCH

Objective In clinical practice and research, standardised sets of data and outcomes are routinely collected to facilitate data comparison, benchmarking and quality improvement. Most existing data sets are condition-specific and cannot be applied to all patients in a given clinical setting. This review aimed to determine whether the development of a minimum data set for subacute rehabilitation is feasible by collating and comparing existing rehabilitation minimum data sets and core outcome sets. Data sources Published literature was identified through database searches (Scopus, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and the COMET Initiative) in September 2021. Additional data sets were identified through a grey literature search. Review methods This review was conducted in alignment with the PRISMA-ScR recommendations. Datasets were included if they were published in English, designed for adults, and intended for use in subacute rehabilitation. Data were extracted and taxonomically organised to identify commonalities. Items present in ≥50% of data sets were considered common. Results Twenty minimum data sets and seven core outcome sets were included. There were 29 common minimum data set domains, with 19 relating to Patient Information, seven relating to Outcomes, two relating to Service Delivery and one relating to Provider Demographics. Four common domains were identified within the Core Outcome Set analysis, which all related to Life Impact, specifically Physical Functioning (86%) , Emotional Functioning/Wellbeing (57%) , Social Functioning (86%) and Global Quality of Life (100%). Conclusion Common item domains in conditions requiring subacute rehabilitation have been identified, suggesting that development of a dataset for subacute rehabilitation may be feasible.

Download Full-text

Gathering Global Perspectives to Establish the Research Priorities and Minimum Data Sets for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Sampling Strategy of the First Round Consensus Surveys of AO Spine RECODE-DCM

Global Spine Journal ◽

10.1177/21925682211047546 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 219256822110475

Author(s):

Oliver D. Mowforth ◽

Danyal Z Khan ◽

Mei Yin Wong ◽

George A. E. Pickering ◽

Lydia Dean ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cervical Myelopathy ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Core Outcome Set ◽

Research Priorities ◽

Core Outcome ◽

Core Data ◽

Minimum Data ◽

Outcome Set ◽

Data Elements ◽

Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy

Study Design Survey. Introduction AO Spine Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (RECODE-DCM) is an international initiative that aims to accelerate knowledge discovery and improve outcomes by developing a consensus framework for research. This includes defining the top research priorities, an index term and a minimum data set (core outcome set and core data elements set – core outcome set (COS)/core data elements (CDE)). Objective To describe how perspectives were gathered and report the detailed sampling characteristics. Methods A two-stage, electronic survey was used to gather and seek initial consensus. Perspectives were sought from spinal surgeons, other healthcare professionals and people with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Participants were allocated to one of two parallel streams: (1) priority setting or (2) minimum dataset. An email campaign was developed to advertise the survey to relevant global stakeholder individuals and organisations. People with DCM were recruited using the international DCM charity Myelopathy.org and its social media channels. A network of global partners was recruited to act as project ambassadors. Data from Google Analytics, MailChimp and Calibrum helped optimise survey dissemination. Results Survey engagement was high amongst the three stakeholder groups: 208 people with DCM, 389 spinal surgeons and 157 other healthcare professionals. Individuals from 76 different countries participated; the United States, United Kingdom and Canada were the most common countries of participants. Conclusion AO Spine RECODE-DCM recruited a diverse and sufficient number of participants for an international PSP and COS/CDE process. Whilst PSP and COS/CDE have been undertaken in other fields, to our knowledge, this is the first time they have been combined in one process.

Download Full-text

Child abuse and neglect surveillance systems via minimum data set indicators

PsycEXTRA Dataset ◽

10.1037/e578482014-143 ◽

2013 ◽

Author(s):

Athanasios Ntinapogias ◽

George Nikolaidis

Keyword(s):

Child Abuse ◽

Child Abuse And Neglect ◽

Minimum Data Set ◽

Surveillance Systems ◽

Data Set ◽

Minimum Data ◽

Abuse And Neglect

Download Full-text

Evaluating Outcomes Used in Cardiothoracic Surgery Intervention Based Research - A Systematic Review of Reviews to Develop a Core Outcome Set

The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon ◽

10.1055/s-0035-1544432 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 63 (S 01) ◽

Author(s):

C. Benstoem ◽

A. Moza ◽

A. Goetzenich ◽

C. Stoppe ◽

R. Autschbach

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Core Outcome Set ◽

Cardiothoracic Surgery ◽

Core Outcome ◽

Outcome Set ◽

Review Of Reviews

Download Full-text

STANDARDIZING AND HARMONIZING OUTCOME MEASUREMENT IN MULTIMODAL PAIN THERAPY- VAPAIN CORE OUTCOME SET RECOMMENDATION

10.26226/morressier.598b05d8d462b80290b5360e ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Ulrike Kaiser

Keyword(s):

Pain Therapy ◽

Outcome Measurement ◽

Core Outcome Set ◽

Core Outcome ◽

Multimodal Pain Therapy ◽

Outcome Set

Download Full-text

State Medical Boards' Perceptions of a Minimum Data Set and Current Practices for Collecting Physician Information

Journal of Medical Regulation ◽

10.30770/2572-1852-99.4.40 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 99 (4) ◽

pp. 40-45 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Aaron Young ◽

Philip Davignon ◽

Margaret B. Hansen ◽

Mark A. Eggen

Keyword(s):

Media Coverage ◽

The United States ◽

Minimum Data Set ◽

Direct Patient Care ◽

Physician Workforce ◽

Data Set ◽

Minimum Data ◽

State Medical Boards ◽

The Impact ◽

Current Practices

ABSTRACT Recent media coverage has focused on the supply of physicians in the United States, especially with the impact of a growing physician shortage and the Affordable Care Act. State medical boards and other entities maintain data on physician licensure and discipline, as well as some biographical data describing their physician populations. However, there are gaps of workforce information in these sources. The Federation of State Medical Boards' (FSMB) Census of Licensed Physicians and the AMA Masterfile, for example, offer valuable information, but they provide a limited picture of the physician workforce. Furthermore, they are unable to shed light on some of the nuances in physician availability, such as how much time physicians spend providing direct patient care. In response to these gaps, policymakers and regulators have in recent years discussed the creation of a physician minimum data set (MDS), which would be gathered periodically and would provide key physician workforce information. While proponents of an MDS believe it would provide benefits to a variety of stakeholders, an effort has not been attempted to determine whether state medical boards think it is important to collect physician workforce data and if they currently collect workforce information from licensed physicians. To learn more, the FSMB sent surveys to the executive directors at state medical boards to determine their perceptions of collecting workforce data and current practices regarding their collection of such data. The purpose of this article is to convey results from this effort. Survey findings indicate that the vast majority of boards view physician workforce information as valuable in the determination of health care needs within their state, and that various boards are already collecting some data elements. Analysis of the data confirms the potential benefits of a physician minimum data set (MDS) and why state medical boards are in a unique position to collect MDS information from physicians.

Download Full-text

Sahnan K, Tozer PJ, Adegbola SO, et al (2019) Developing a Core Outcome Set for Fistulising Perianal Crohn’s Disease Gut 68:226–38

Côlon & Rectum ◽

10.3166/cer-2020-0135 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 14 (2) ◽

pp. 100-101

Author(s):

D. Bouchard ◽

L. Tracanelli ◽

F. Pigot

Keyword(s):

Crohn’S Disease ◽

Qualité De Vie ◽

Maladie De Crohn ◽

Core Outcome Set ◽

Core Outcome ◽

Perianal Crohn’S Disease ◽

Revue De La Littérature ◽

Outcome Set ◽

Maladies Inflammatoires Intestinales ◽

Perianal Crohn's Disease

Objectif : L’absence de standardisation des objectifs à atteindre par les traitements des fistules anopérinéales (FAP) de la maladie de Crohn limite les possibilités d’analyse et de comparaison des données issues des études disponibles. L’élaboration d’une liste standardisée d’objectifs à atteindre permettrait de résoudre ces problèmes. Cette étude valide la liste d’objectifs cruciaux (core outcome set [COS]) à atteindre pour le Crohn fistulisant. Méthode : Les objectifs susceptibles d’être retenus ont été définis par une revue de la littérature et des interviews de patients. La sélection consensuelle a été établie à l’issue d’un processus Delphi en trois étapes en évaluant sur une échelle de Likert en neuf points, l’importance que ces objectifs avaient pour définir la réussite d’un traitement. Des représentants de chacun des trois groupes impliqués dans ces traitements ont été recrutés à l’échelle nationale (chirurgiens et radiologistes, gastroentérologues et infirmières spécialisées en maladies inflammatoires intestinales, et enfin patients). Chaque intervenant a noté les différents objectifs possibles, puis a corrigé ses notes après avoir pris connaissance des autres notes données par les membres de son groupe (au deuxième tour) puis encore une fois après avoir pris connaissance des notations données par tous les participants (au troisième tour). Résultats : Au total, 295 objectifs potentiels ont été identifiés à partir d’une revue de la littérature et d’interviews, ils ont été catégorisés en 92 domaines. Cent quatre-vingt-sept participants (taux de réponse : 78,5 %) ont accordé la priorité à 49 objectifs à l’issue d’une méthode Delphi à trois cycles. Une réunion de consensus finale de 41 experts et patients s’est accordée sur un COS comprenant huit catégories d’objectifs. Ce COS comprenait trois catégories d’objectifs importants pour le patient (qualité de vie, incontinence et score combiné des priorités du patient) et cinq catégories d’objectifs retenus par les praticiens (activité de la maladie périanale, développement d’un nouvel abcès périanal, fistule nouvelle/récidivante, chirurgie non planifiée et dérivation fécale). Conclusion : Un COS sur les FAP de laMC a été élaboré par tous les acteurs clés de cette maladie. L’utilisation du COS diminuera l’hétérogénéité dans l’expression des résultats des traitements, ce qui rendra plus pertinente la comparaison des traitements entre eux, la synthèse des données et, en fin de compte, les soins rendus aux patients.

Download Full-text