Skip to content
Review Open access

Development of a core outcome set for the evaluation of shared decision-making interventions in healthcare: a study protocol

Sep 2026 · BMJ Open · Vol 16 · 0 citations · 50 references
Medicine

TL;DR

This study aims to develop a generic COS for evaluating the impact of SDM interventions (COS-SDMi), developed in the context of rheumatology, and disseminated through presentations at international conferences, briefing notes to key organisations and publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process whereby patients are supported to reach decisions about their healthcare in collaboration with healthcare professionals. Despite decades of SDM research, the impact of using SDM interventions (eg, patient decision aids, decision coaching, question prompt lists, training and feedback or service changes) on clinical and health service outcomes remains uncertain. This is partly because synthesis of the existing literature is hindered by substantial heterogeneity in the evaluation of interventions to facilitate SDM. A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardised set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all effectiveness studies. The aim of this study is to develop a generic COS for evaluating the impact of SDM interventions (COS-SDMi). Methods and analysis This study will follow Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) handbook and Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) and reporting (COS-STAR). Relevant key interest holder groups include health professionals, patients, academic experts in SDM, representatives from policy/guideline development, journal editors and research funders. The scope of the COS was agreed through consultation with experts from key interest holder groups. The study will consist of three steps. In Step 1, we will produce a ‘long’ (comprehensive) list of candidate outcome domains using multiple data sources. Relevant outcomes will be extracted from a COS developed in the context of rheumatology, a synthesis of existing reviews of SDM interventions and qualitative interviews with a minimum of 20 representatives of key interest holder groups internationally. In Step 2, we will agree on a shorter list of outcome domains using a Delphi survey. A sequential two-round international online Delphi survey with two panels (professionals, public/patients) will be used to agree on the outcomes, seeking responses from a minimum of 150 international participants representing key interest groups. In Step 3, we will reach consensus on the final COS using consensus meetings. Consensus meetings with key interest holder group participants internationally will be held, applying modified nominal group techniques. The total project period will be from June 2025 until September 2026. Ethics and dissemination Research ethics approval has been granted in the UK for undertaking qualitative interviews (University of Exeter Faculty Ethics Committee, ref: 8207624) and the Delphi survey and consensus meeting activities (University of Bristol Faculty Ethics Committee, ref: 7741). Written informed consent will be obtained digitally from all participants in the qualitative interviews, the Delphi surveys and the consensus meetings. The final COS will be disseminated through presentations at international conferences, briefing notes to key organisations and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Further dissemination is planned through our patient/public advisory group, professional networks and executive group channels, as well as publications to patient groups, funders, journal editors, international regulatory bodies and health technology assessment boards. Study registration COMET Database (www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/3586).

Read PDF

Similar papers

Review Open access Sep 2026

Shared decision-making in patients with stroke: a scoping review

Abstract Objective To map the existing evidence on shared decision-making (SDM) in stroke care across four dimensions (clinical contexts, decision support tools, influencing factors and implementation outcomes) and to identify key research gaps. Design Scoping review conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting...

Shu-Ting Wang, Ling Liu, Li-Li Yao et al. · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

Development of a structured shared decision-making model for implementation in hospital care.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Shared decision-making (SDM) is a core component of patient-centred care, with proven benefits for decision quality and satisfaction. However, its implementation in hospital settings remains limited. This study aimed to describe the development of a SDM model and to evaluate its feasibility,...

K. Salas-Gama, E. Niño-de-Guzmán, A. C. Mihai et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Sep 2026

Patient-reported outcomes in studies evaluating shared decision-making interventions: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

This protocol describes a systematic review that will map PROs and synthesise effects by PRO construct, where data permit, and meta-analysis will be performed where studies are sufficiently comparable.

Sang-Ho Yoo, Myonghwa Park, M. J. Kim · 0 citations
Review Open access Sep 2026

Development of a framework to improve the quality and value of choosing outcomes in cardiovascular disease research (FAVOUR): a study protocol

Abstract Background Selecting appropriate outcomes is crucial for enhancing the comparability and relevance of clinical trials, yet uptake of core outcome sets (COS) remains low. This study aims to develop a framework to improve the quality and value of choosing outcomes in cardiovascular disease research (FAVOUR), so...

Rui-Jin Qiu, Shuang-Qiu Wang, Chang-He Yu et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Sep 2026

Development and evaluation of a quality assessment tool for equality, diversity, and inclusion (QUALITY-EDI) within healthcare research

Implementing equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in healthcare research is critical to ensuring findings are translatable and provide the greatest benefit to patients who need it most. A quality assessment scoring tool (QUALITY-EDI) was developed to evaluate the conduct of EDI in healthcare research across all sta...

M. Fadel, Hannah Kettley-linsell, P. Boshier et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.