Article type
Abstract
Background:
Using a prioritization process to curtail the number of health outcomes in guideline development is important to ensure the most important outcomes for decision-making are addressed in a feasible manner. This is particularly challenging for novel complex conditions such as post COVID-19 condition (PCC).
Objective:
Describe the stepwise methods, results, and lessons learned regarding outcome prioritization in the Canadian Guidelines for PCC (CAN-PCC).
Methods:
CAN-PCC is using a rapid outcome prioritization process and involves multiple project groups including persons with lived experience, public members, representatives of equity-deserving groups, health professionals, researchers, and policymakers. The following steps have been, or are being taken: 1) scoping review of the PCC literature to identify reported health outcomes from guidelines and systematic reviews on PCC; 2) selection of a published core outcome set (COS) to map potentially important outcomes; 3) guideline teams provided input regarding which potentially important outcomes for their topic and questions may be missing; 4) an outcome importance rating survey including an inclusive list of outcomes with health outcome descriptors (HOD) for standardization was sent to all project collaborators; 5) finalization of outcome selection per question will take in account results from all previous steps.
Results:
A total of 126 outcomes potentially related to PCC were identified from the scoping review. These outcomes were mapped according to 12 domains from a COS on PCC, and additional outcomes were brainstormed to fill gaps. Guideline teams indicated any potentially missing outcomes, sometimes based on parallel outcome prioritization. The outcome importance rating survey included 130 outcomes for which HODs were developed, will be sent to over 100 project collaborators, and uses randomization to keep time investment feasible. Finalization of outcome prioritization per guideline question will be done by guideline teams using the results from these steps and will be completed by April 2024. An overarching guideline development group will aim to ensure relevance and internal consistency.
Conclusions:
CAN-PCC provides an example of a rapid outcome prioritization process for a novel complex disease, using a COS and HODs. Lessons learned will inform future approaches to optimize outcome prioritization in similar contexts.
Using a prioritization process to curtail the number of health outcomes in guideline development is important to ensure the most important outcomes for decision-making are addressed in a feasible manner. This is particularly challenging for novel complex conditions such as post COVID-19 condition (PCC).
Objective:
Describe the stepwise methods, results, and lessons learned regarding outcome prioritization in the Canadian Guidelines for PCC (CAN-PCC).
Methods:
CAN-PCC is using a rapid outcome prioritization process and involves multiple project groups including persons with lived experience, public members, representatives of equity-deserving groups, health professionals, researchers, and policymakers. The following steps have been, or are being taken: 1) scoping review of the PCC literature to identify reported health outcomes from guidelines and systematic reviews on PCC; 2) selection of a published core outcome set (COS) to map potentially important outcomes; 3) guideline teams provided input regarding which potentially important outcomes for their topic and questions may be missing; 4) an outcome importance rating survey including an inclusive list of outcomes with health outcome descriptors (HOD) for standardization was sent to all project collaborators; 5) finalization of outcome selection per question will take in account results from all previous steps.
Results:
A total of 126 outcomes potentially related to PCC were identified from the scoping review. These outcomes were mapped according to 12 domains from a COS on PCC, and additional outcomes were brainstormed to fill gaps. Guideline teams indicated any potentially missing outcomes, sometimes based on parallel outcome prioritization. The outcome importance rating survey included 130 outcomes for which HODs were developed, will be sent to over 100 project collaborators, and uses randomization to keep time investment feasible. Finalization of outcome prioritization per guideline question will be done by guideline teams using the results from these steps and will be completed by April 2024. An overarching guideline development group will aim to ensure relevance and internal consistency.
Conclusions:
CAN-PCC provides an example of a rapid outcome prioritization process for a novel complex disease, using a COS and HODs. Lessons learned will inform future approaches to optimize outcome prioritization in similar contexts.