Engaging domestic abuse practitioners and survivors in a review of outcome tools – reflections on differing priorities

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Researchers often develop and decide upon the measurement tools for assessing outcomes related to domestic abuse interventions. However, it is known that clients, service providers and researchers have different ideas about the outcomes that should be measured as markers of success. Evidence from non-domestic abuse sectors indicates that engagement of service providers, clients and researchers contributes to more robust research, policy and practice. We reflect on what we have learnt from the engagement of practitioners and domestic abuse survivors in a review of domestic abuse measurement tools where there were clear differences in priorities between survivors, practitioners and researchers about the ideal measurement tools. The purpose of this reflective article is to support the improvement of future outcome measurement from domestic abuse interventions, while ensuring that domestic abuse survivors do not relive trauma because of measurement.

Most cited references 26

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

L. Mokkink, H. C. W. de Vet, C. A. C. Prinsen … (2017)

Purpose The original COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was developed to assess the methodological quality of single studies on measurement properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Now it is our aim to adapt the COSMIN checklist and its four-point rating system into a version exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs, aiming to assess risk of bias of studies on measurement properties. Methods For each standard (i.e., a design requirement or preferred statistical method), it was discussed within the COSMIN steering committee if and how it should be adapted. The adapted checklist was pilot-tested to strengthen content validity in a systematic review on the quality of PROMs for patients with hand osteoarthritis. Results Most important changes were the reordering of the measurement properties to be assessed in a systematic review of PROMs; the deletion of standards that concerned reporting issues and standards that not necessarily lead to biased results; the integration of standards on general requirements for studies on item response theory with standards for specific measurement properties; the recommendation to the review team to specify hypotheses for construct validity and responsiveness in advance, and subsequently the removal of the standards about formulating hypotheses; and the change in the labels of the four-point rating system. Conclusions The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was developed exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs to distinguish this application from other purposes of assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties, such as guidance for designing or reporting a study on the measurement properties. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

0 comments Cited 623 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The COMET Handbook: version 1.0

Paula Williamson, Douglas G. Altman, Heather Bagley … (2017)

The selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare the effects of different interventions directly. For the findings to influence policy and practice, the outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. It is now widely acknowledged that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. Researchers are increasingly addressing this issue through the development and use of a core outcome set, an agreed standardised collection of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area. Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for guidance on the development, implementation, evaluation and updating of core outcome sets. This Handbook, developed by the COMET Initiative, brings together current thinking and methodological research regarding those issues. We recommend a four-step process to develop a core outcome set. The aim is to update the contents of the Handbook as further research is identified. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

0 comments Cited 545 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument

Lidwine Mokkink, Cecilia Prinsen, Lex Bouter … (2016)

Background: COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) is an initiative of an international multidisciplinary team of researchers who aim to improve the selection of outcome measurement instruments both in research and in clinical practice by developing tools for selecting the most appropriate available instrument. Method: In this paper these tools are described, i.e. the COSMIN taxonomy and definition of measurement properties; the COSMIN checklist to evaluate the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties; a search filter for finding studies on measurement properties; a protocol for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments; a database of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments; and a guideline for selecting outcome measurement instruments for Core Outcome Sets in clinical trials. Currently, we are updating the COSMIN checklist, particularly the standards for content validity studies. Also new standards for studies using Item Response Theory methods will be developed. Additionally, in the future we want to develop standards for studies on the quality of non-patient reported outcome measures, such as clinician-reported outcomes and performance-based outcomes. Conclusions: In summary, we plea for more standardization in the use of outcome measurement instruments, for conducting high quality systematic reviews on measurement instruments in which the best available outcome measurement instrument is recommended, and for stopping the use of poor outcome measurement instruments.

0 comments Cited 243 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (publisher-id): rfa

Title: Research for All

Publisher: UCL Press (UK )

ISSN (Electronic): 2399-8121

Publication date (Electronic): 23 May 2023

Volume: 7

Issue: 1

Electronic Location Identifier: 06

Affiliations

[1 ]Research Assistant, Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab (RREAL), UCL (University College London), UK

[2 ]Assistant Professor, Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

[3 ]Network Director, IRISi, Bristol, UK

[4 ]Professor of Primary Care, University of Bristol, UK

[5 ]Director of Strategic Partnerships, The For Baby’s Sake Trust, Stevenage, UK

[6 ]Senior Lecturer, School of Psychology, University of East London, UK

[7 ]VOICES, UK

[8 ]Founder and CEO, VOICES, UK

[9 ]SafeLives Pioneer and Lived Experience Trustee, SafeLives, UK

[10 ]Professor of Preventive Medicine, University of São Paulo, Brazil

[11 ]Assistant Professor of Epidemiology and Population Health, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine

[12 ]Professorial Research Fellow, Director of the Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab (RREAL), UCL (University College London), UK

[13 ]Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Child Health, UCL (University College London), UK

Author notes

*Correspondence: c.powell@ 123456ucl.ac.uk

Author information

Sigrún Eyrúnardóttir Clark https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5679-2535

Melissa Kimber https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1255-8947

Gene Feder https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7890-3926

Emma Howarth https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3969-7883

Amira Shaheen https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8658-7639

Cecilia Vindrola-Padros https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7859-1646

Claire Powell https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6581-0165

Article

DOI: 10.14324/RFA.07.1.06

SO-VID: 4196b5c3-eb45-4b5b-8ee3-2547865d2416

Copyright © Copyright 2023, Sigrún Eyrúnardóttir Clark, Melissa Kimber, Lucy Downes, Gene Feder, Elaine Fulton, Emma Howarth, Karen Johns, Ursula Lindenberg, Ana Flavia d’Oliveira, Amira Shaheen, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros and Claire Powell

License:

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY) 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

History

Date received : 11 October 2022

Date accepted : 07 February 2023

Page count

Figures: 1, Tables: 1, References: 32, Pages: 11

Funding

This project was funded by the Home Office. GF, EH and CP are (in part) supported by the NIHR Children and Families Policy Research Unit. The views expressed are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Home Office, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.