Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Oct 2.
Published in final edited form as: J Rheumatol. 2019 Feb 1;46(10):1409–1414. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.181071

Development of a core domain set of outcomes for shared decision making interventions: An OMERACT white paper with stakeholders’ input

Karine Toupin April 1, Jennifer L Barton 1, Liana Fraenkel 1, Alexa Meara 1, Linda C Li 1, Peter Brooks 1, Maarten de Wit 1, Dawn Stacey 1, France Légaré 1, Beverley Shea 1, Anne Lyddiatt 1, Cathie Hofstetter 1, Robin Christensen 1, Marieke Scholte Voshaar 1, Maria E Suarez-Almazor 1, Annelies Boonen 1, Tanya Meade 1, Lyn March 1, Janet Elizabeth Jull 1, Willemina Campbell 1, Rieke Alten 1, Suvi Karuranga 1, Esi M Morgan 1, Ayano Kelly 1, Jessica Kaufman 1, Sophie Hill 1, Lara J Maxwell 1, Dorcas Beaton 1, Yasser El-Miedany 1, Shikha Mittoo 1, Susan J Bartlett 1, Jasvinder A Singh 1, Peter Tugwell 1
PMCID: PMC6675671  NIHMSID: NIHMS1010455  PMID: 30709963

Abstract

Objective:

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) shared decision making (SDM) Working Group aims to determine the core outcome domain set for measuring the effectiveness of SDM interventions in rheumatology trials.

Methods:

A white paper was developed to clarify the draft core domain set. It was then used to prepare stakeholders for interviews to explore reasons for lack of consensus on it and to suggest further improvements.

Results:

OMERACT scientists/clinicians (n=13) and patients (n=10) suggested limiting the core domain set to outcome domains, removing process domains, and clarifying remaining domains.

Conclusion:

A revised core domain set will undergo further consensus-building.

Keywords: OMERACT, rheumatic diseases, outcomes

Introduction

There has been an increasing interest from patients to engage in shared decision making (SDM) (1) and there is an ethical imperative to do so (2). The incorporation of SDM is also recommended standard of care in rheumatology practice (36). SDM is defined as a process by which patients and healthcare professionals work together to make decisions based on the best available evidence for treatment options while respecting each patient’s values and preferences (7). SDM is especially important when there is more than one medically reasonable option, and the optimal choice depends on what patients value most (e.g., types of harms, benefits) (8). Patients who report having participated in SDM are likely to experience improved affective-cognitive outcomes, such as greater satisfaction and less decisional conflict (uncertainty) (9). However, additional research is needed to clarify the impact of SDM on a wide range of outcomes including behavioural and health outcomes (9).

Interventions aimed at facilitating SDM include patient decision aids, decision coaching, question prompts and health care providers’ training (1013). Patient decision aids have been shown to improve knowledge of treatment options and accurate risk perceptions, clarify patients’ values and preferences and facilitate patient participation in decision making (10). Also, decision coaching improves knowledge and patient satisfaction (11), while questions prompts improve satisfaction (12). There is a need for more research examining the effectiveness of interventions to facilitate the practice of SDM by healthcare professionals (13). Despite the great potential of SDM interventions to improve patient involvement and management of various rheumatic conditions (1416), lack of consensus on which outcomes to measure creates a barrier to further evaluation of SDM interventions and their implementation in clinical practice.

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM working group (WG) is developing consensus on a core domain set of outcomes for measuring the effectiveness of SDM interventions in rheumatology clinical trials. Following the OMERACT Filter 2.1 multistep methodology (1719), the WG developed a draft core domain set of SDM process and outcome domains based on a systematic review and a nominal group process conducted at the OMERACT 2014 meeting (20). In 2016, an international electronic Delphi survey was conducted among patients, caregivers, clinicians and researchers to refine the domains of the OMERACT draft core domain set (21). This draft core domain set was then presented for voting by attendees at the OMERACT 2016 meeting. Despite high levels of endorsement of the draft core domain set in the pre-meeting Delphi survey, it did not receive the needed 70% at the voting in the plenary session and, thus this version was not endorsed at the OMERACT 2016 meeting. Possible reasons for this lack of endorsement include: (1) challenges related to comprehension of core domain set, because of the lack of familiarity of OMERACT participants with SDM concepts, (2) confusion between domains of the core domain set that assess the SDM process rather than its outcomes which are usually the focus of OMERACT core domain sets, and (3) lower representation of patients at the final plenary vote compared with the prior Delphi survey, combined with the possible differences between patients’ and clinicians’ levels of endorsement.

These challenges highlighted the need to clarify the relevance, development process and content of the draft SDM intervention core domain set, as well as to improve it, with input from both patients and clinicians/scientists, in a way that addresses the potential reasons why consensus was not achieved at OMERACT 2016.

Materials and Methods

First, the working group endeavoured to clarify the relevance, development process and content of the draft core domain set of outcomes of SDM interventions in the form of a draft white paper. Next, the draft white paper was used to help prepare patients and clinicians/researchers for interviews to gather their perspective on how to improve the core domain set. Finally, their feedback was used to develop an improved draft core domain set and a final white paper.

1). Development of the draft white paper:

A draft white paper was developed with the input of key stakeholders (i.e., patients and clinicians/scientists) within our research team using online group discussions and individual interviews. Stakeholders were asked to identify information that was necessary to clarify the background, development process, and terms used in the draft SDM intervention core domain set.

The elements included in the draft white paper were : (1) background information on SDM and its importance in rheumatology clinical trials, which included a definition of SDM; (2) background on SDM interventions, including the evidence for patient decision aids and decision coaching and links to some examples; (3) rationale and overall goal of the OMERACT SDM WG (including an example of a research question asked in a trial to which the core domain set would apply); (4) previous work and hypotheses generated to explain the lack of consensus on the draft core domain set; (5) draft core domain set, including information on the level of importance of each domain in previous phases of our work (e.g., 2016 Delphi survey, OMERACT 2016 workshop) and from other organizations such as the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) (i.e., core set of domains to assess the effectiveness of patient decision aids (22)); and (6) future steps. The draft core domain set in the white paper presented both domains related to the SDM process as well as SDM outcome domains, but in two separate categories to clarify the distinction between these two types of domains (falling under the OMERACT heading of patient-reported life impact outcomes) (see Figure 1). We defined process domains as domains that represent steps of the SDM process (e.g., patients receive information about the options and their features). We defined outcome domains as domains that are expected to change as a result of an SDM intervention (e.g., patient knowledge of the options and their features.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1.

DRAFT CORE DOMAIN SET DIVIDED INTO PROCESS AND OUTCOME DOMAINS PRESENTED IN THE WHITE PAPER

2). Interviews:

Key stakeholders from various OMERACT working groups were identified using the list of OMERACT conference attendees and were contacted by e-mail. They received information about the project and their oral consent to participate was deemed sufficient by the Research Ethics Board of the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, who approved the study (CHEOREB#16/07X), since no personal information was gathered. They were asked to participate in semi-structured interviews by telephone or via GoToMeeting to determine how to improve the clarity and relevance of the revised draft core domain set, and, by extension, inform the white paper. The draft white paper was sent to participants with instructions to read it before the interview. The same interviewers conducted all interviews. First, an interviewer explained the goal of the WG and of the core domain set, and summarized results from the previous steps conducted by the working group. Interviewers then used a guide with open-ended questions asking about the clarity and relevance of the core domain set, as well as eliciting recommendations for modifications to the core domain set and white paper. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Field notes were taken by the interviewer. Transcripts and field notes were included in a process of content analysis using NVivo 11 software. Themes were identified from the field notes and transcripts. Feedback was used to improve the white paper and the core domain set so as to address participants’ concerns.

Results

Of a sample of 25 OMERACT members, 23 participated in interviews, of which 13 were scientists/clinicians and 10 were patients. Two individuals were unable to participate. Nine participants (three patients) were from North America, nine from Europe (five patients) and five from Australia (two patients). Patients had a variety of rheumatic conditions (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Behcet’s, myositis). Interview duration varied between 30 and 75 minutes.

The group co-producing this manuscript represent a wide range of stakeholders and include people involved in OMERACT as well as researchers, patient representatives and policy makers from several countries who have an interest in SDM and core outcomes. Co-producing research is an approach in which all these stakeholders work together and share power and responsibility throughout the duration of the project (23). This includes the generation of knowledge and co-authorship based on substantive input from the individuals lived experience and/or expertise on resulting abstracts, manuscripts, and other dissemination materials (23).

Feedback on the draft core domain set

All participants agreed that SDM is vital to patient care and that a SDM intervention core outcome domain set fits within the OMERACT mandate. However, many participants acknowledged that it differs from the usual OMERACT core domain set which is usually for a disease. SDM outcome domains are also different from what OMERACT members are accustomed to (i.e., condition-specific health outcomes). Participants expressed diverse views of how they perceived SDM and its implementation, based on their own personal experiences, even though they felt that the white paper helped them to understand the relevance, development process and content of the core outcome domain set. They recommended that the working group acknowledge the unique features of SDM and improve the clarity of the core domain set when presenting it to OMERACT members.

All participants felt that domains related to the process and outcomes of SDM were important to measure but should be clearly distinguished one from another. Most participants mentioned that, since OMERACT focuses on outcome rather than process domains, current efforts should aim to generate outcome domains. Future work will help determine the need for a core set of process domains.

When looking at outcome domains in more detail, most participants felt that all SDM outcome domains were relevant, but suggested regrouping some of them. For example, a few participants suggested that the domain entitled “knowledge of the options” should include accurate risk perceptions, rather than having it as a separate core domain. We decided to merge them at the present time. Also, a few participants felt that “adherence to the chosen option” should be included in the middle circle of the core domain set, meaning that it can be measured in trials of SDM interventions but is not essential, while some wanted to include it in the inner circle, meaning that it is essential. A few participants recommended modifying the name of this domain to “implementation of the chosen option” since they feared the negative connotation that patients follow their health care providers’ choice and not their own. We decided to keep the term “adherence to the chosen option” in the inner circle at the present time, which means that they follow through with the chosen treatment option by starting using the chosen option. Ongoing dialogue with the OMERACT medication adherence WG will help clarify this domain and the term to describe it.

In addition to minor changes in language and merging of some domains, participants recommended the addition of descriptions of domains. We added these descriptions for each domain of the core domain set. Finally, because OMERACT members are not as familiar with SDM outcome measures, they suggested providing a few examples of SDM outcome measures to make the draft core domains more understandable. We will work on adding these in the future.

Revised draft core domain set

Based on participants’ feedback, the draft core domain set was revised (see Figure 2). It includes: knowledge of all available options, their potential benefits and risks; choice of an option aligned with each patient’s values/preferences; confidence in the decision made; satisfaction with the decision-making process; and adherence to the chosen option.

FIGURE 2: REVISED DRAFT CORE OUTCOME DOMAIN SET.

FIGURE 2:

Outer circle (research agenda): Outcome domains that domains that require further investigation

Middle circle: Outcome domains that are strongly recommended to measure but not mandatory

Inner circle: Outcome domains that are mandatory to measure in all clinical trials of SDM interventions

Description of the domains:

- Knowledge of all options, their potential benefits and risks:

The shared decision making intervention helps patients understand the available options and their potential benefits, risks. It also helps them to know the probabilities of benefits and risks in an accurate manner.

Knowledge of:

1. All available options (including nothing)

2. Benefits

3. Risk

- Choice of an option aligned with each patient’s values/preferences

The shared decision making intervention helps patients choose the treatment option that matches their values and preferences. It means they chose the treatment option that has the features that they value most.

- Confidence in the decision made (i.e., decisional certainty)

The shared decision making intervention helps patients feel sure they made the best decision. It means they feel confident in the decision they made. This is the opposite of decisional conflict (i.e., decisional uncertainty).

- Satisfaction with the decision-making process

The shared decision making intervention helps patients feel satisfied about the way they made the decision.

- Adherence to the chosen option

The shared decision making intervention helps patients follow through with the chosen treatment option. It means they start using the option they chose.

Development of the final version of the white paper

Based on the interviews, a final version of the white paper was created (found at: https://omeract.org/working-groups/white paper). Changes made in this version include: (1) simplification and clarification of the background information on SDM; (2) mention of the emphasis placed on SDM outcome rather than process domains; (3) presentation of the revised draft core domain set with a description of each domain.

A few stakeholders also suggested creating a more concise document (such as a one pager) and providing OMERACT members with audiovisual material to make the core domain set more tangible and understandable, and to facilitate the endorsement of the core domain set.

Discussion

Developing the white paper with our working group helped us to clarify the relevance, development process and content of the draft core domain set. Discussing the white paper with key stakeholders in OMERACT has also helped us to further our understanding of the challenges to reaching consensus on the draft SDM intervention core outcome domain set. Challenges include the fact that SDM process and outcome domains do not reflect a typical OMERACT core set. In addition, participants revealed significant variation in the understanding of SDM and the core domain set. Our findings provide directions for the SDM WG on how to improve and simplify the draft core domain set to facilitate its endorsement.

The revised draft core domain set should address the challenges experienced in gaining consensus at OMERACT 2016. First, explaining and defining SDM, SDM interventions and the core domain set in a clear and concise format may facilitate understanding. Second, restricting the revised core domain set to outcome domains as opposed to both process and outcome domains should clarify these types of domains and better align with the OMERACT framework.

The revised draft core domain set differs from the IPDAS criteria to evaluate effectiveness of decision aids, which uses different language and includes both process and outcome domains (22). However, the current research strictly followed the OMERACT methodology and shows the importance of modifying the core set to suit stakeholders’ needs, which required a focus on outcome domains. Obtaining both scientist/clinicians’ and patients’ input is crucial since they will ultimately conduct, appraise and use research on SDM interventions in rheumatology. The revised draft core domain set will be taken forward for further consensus-building. Disseminating the improved white paper as well as a more concise document should help to facilitate the endorsement of the core outcome domain set.

Acknowledgements:

The authors would like to thank members of the working group: Laure Gossec, Sarah Collins, Thomas Chong, Pamela Richards, Ailsa Bosworth, Pamela Montie, Francis Guillemin, Jennifer Petkovic, Melissa Mannion, Cécile Gaujoux-Viala, Anne Stiggelbout and Nick Bansback. Finally, we would like to thank the study participants.

Funding:

K. Toupin-April is funded by the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute and The Arthritis Society. J. L. Barton’s research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health, under Award Number K23-AR-064372. L. Fraenkel’s research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health, under Award Number AR060231–01. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. D. Stacey holds a University of Ottawa Research Chair in Knowledge Translation to Patients. F. Légaré holds a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation. R. Christensen’s research at the Parker Institute is supported by grants from The Oak Foundation (OCAY-13–309). L. March’s research is supported by the Northern Sydney Local Health District. S. Hill is supported by La Trobe University. P. Tugwell holds a Canada Research Chair.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest: There are no conflicts of interest.

Contributor Information

Karine Toupin April, Email: ktoupin@cheo.on.ca.

Jennifer L. Barton, Email: bartoje@ohsu.edu.

Liana Fraenkel, Email: liana.fraenkel@yale.edu.

Alexa Meara, Email: Alexa.meara@osumc.edu.

Linda C. Li, Email: lli@arthritisresearch.ca.

Peter Brooks, Email: brooksp@unimelb.edu.au.

Maarten de Wit, Email: martinusdewit@hotmail.com.

Dawn Stacey, Email: Dawn.Stacey@uOttawa.ca.

France Légaré, Email: france.legare@mfa.ulaval.ca.

Beverley Shea, Email: bevshea35@gmail.com.

Anne Lyddiatt, Email: lyddiatt@lyddiatt.ca.

Cathie Hofstetter, Email: mcffence@on.aibn.com.

Robin Christensen, Email: robin.christensen@regionh.dk.

Marieke Scholte Voshaar, Email: marieke_scholte@hotmail.com.

Maria E. Suarez-Almazor, Email: msalmazor@mdanderson.org.

Annelies Boonen, Email: a.boonen@mumc.nl.

Tanya Meade, Email: t.meade@westernsydney.edu.au.

Lyn March, Email: lyn.march@sydney.edu.au.

Janet Elizabeth Jull, Email: janet.jull@queensu.ca.

Willemina Campbell, Email: ina.campbell@sympatico.ca.

Rieke Alten, Email: rieke.alten@schlosspark-klinik.de.

Suvi Karuranga, Email: suvi.karuranga@gmail.com.

Esi M. Morgan, Email: Esi.M.Morgan_DeWitt@cchmc.org.

Ayano Kelly, Email: ayano.kelly@anu.edu.au.

Jessica Kaufman, Email: j.kaufman@latrobe.edu.au.

Sophie Hill, Email: sophie.hill@latrobe.edu.au.

Lara J. Maxwell, Email: lmaxwell@uottawa.ca.

Dorcas Beaton, Email: dbeaton@iwh.on.ca.

Yasser El-Miedany, Email: drelmiedany@rheumatology4u.com.

Shikha Mittoo, Email: shikha.hopkins@gmail.com.

Susan J. Bartlett, Email: susan.bartlett@mcgill.ca.

Jasvinder A. Singh, Email: jasvinder.md@gmail.com.

Peter Tugwell, Email: tugwell.bb@uottawa.ca.

Reference List

  • (1).Chewning B, Bylund CL, Shah B, Arora NK, Gueguen JA, Makoul G. Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 2012;86:9–18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (2).Elwyn G, Tilburt J, Montori V. The ethical imperative for shared decision-making. Eur J Pers Cent Healthc 2013;1:129–31. [Google Scholar]
  • (3).Smolen JS, Aletaha D, Bijlsma JW, Breedveld FC, Boumpas D, Burmester G, et al. Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:631–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (4).Smolen JS, Landewe R, Bijlsma J, Burmester G, Chatzidionysiou K, Dougados M, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:960–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (5).Gossec L, Smolen JS, Ramiro S, de Wit M, Cutolo M, Dougados M, et al. European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2015 update. Ann Rheum Dis 2016;75:499–510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (6).Ravelli A, Consolaro A, Horneff G, Laxer RM, Lovell DJ, Wulffraat NM, et al. Treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis 2018;77:819–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (7).Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns 2006;60:301–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (8).Elwyn G, Frosch D, Rollnick S. Dual equipoise shared decision making: definitions for decision and behaviour support interventions. Implement Sci 2009;4:1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (9).Shay LA, Lafata JE. Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Making 2015;35:114–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (10).Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (11).Stacey D, Kryworuchko J, Bennett C, Murray MA, Mullan S, Legare F. Decision coaching to prepare patients for making health decisions: a systematic review of decision coaching in trials of patient decision AIDS. Med Decis Making 2012;32:E22–E33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (12).Shepherd HL, Barratt A, Jones A, Bateson D, Carey K, Trevena LJ, et al. Can consumers learn to ask three questions to improve shared decision making? A feasibility study of the ASK (AskShareKnow) Patient-Clinician Communication Model((R)) intervention in a primary health-care setting. Health Expect 2016;19:1160–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (13).Legare F, Adekpedjou R, Stacey D, Turcotte S, Kryworuchko J, Graham ID, et al. Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (14).Fraenkel L, Rabidou N, Wittink D, Fried T. Improving informed decision-making for patients with knee pain. J Rheumatol 2007;34:1894–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (15).de Achaval S, Fraenkel L, Volk RJ, Cox V, Suarez-Almazor ME. Impact of educational and patient decision aids on decisional conflict associated with total knee arthroplasty. Arthritis Care Res 2012;64:229–37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (16).Stacey D, Hawker G, Dervin G, Tugwell P, Boland L, Pomey MP, et al. Decision aid for patients considering total knee arthroplasty with preference report for surgeons: a pilot randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2014;15:54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (17).Boers M, Kirwan JR, Gossec L, Conaghan PG, D’Agostino MA, Bingham CO III, et al. How to choose core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT 11 approves filter 2.0. J Rheumatol 2014;41:1025–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (18).Boers M, Kirwan JR, Wells G, Beaton D, Gossec L, D’Agostino MA, et al. Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:745–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (19).Boers M, Kirwan J, Tugwell P, Beaton D, Bingham CI, Conaghan P. The OMERACT Handbook. [Internet. Accessed May 9, 2018]. Available from: www omeract org/pdf/OMERACT_Handbook.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • (20).Toupin-April K, Barton J, Fraenkel L, Li L, Grandpierre V, Guillemin F, et al. Development of a Draft Core Set of Domains for Measuring Shared Decision Making in Osteoarthritis: An OMERACT Working Group on Shared Decision Making. J Rheumatol 2015;42:2442–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (21).Toupin-April K, Barton J, Fraenkel L, Li LC, Brooks P, de Wit M, et al. Toward the Development of a Core Set of Outcome Domains to Assess Shared Decision-making Interventions in Rheumatology: Results from an OMERACT Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting. J Rheumatol 2017;44:1544–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (22).Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ 2006;333:417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • (23).Hickey G, Brearley S, Coldham T. Guidance on co-producing a research project. Southampton: INVOLVE; 2018. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES