IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0294193.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A core outcome set for evaluating the effectiveness of mixed-diagnosis falls prevention interventions for people with Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s Disease and stroke

Author

Listed:
  • Nicola O’Malley
  • Susan Coote
  • Fiona McCullough Staunton
  • Eileen O’Connor
  • Amanda M Clifford

Abstract

Introduction: Clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of falls prevention interventions for people with Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Parkinson’s Disease (PD) and stroke measure heterogeneous outcomes, often omitting those meaningful to patients. A core outcome set (COS) is a standardised set of outcomes that should be assessed in all trials within a research area. The aim of this study was to develop a COS for evaluating mixed-diagnosis falls prevention interventions for people with MS, PD and stroke in non-acute and community settings, with input from relevant stakeholder groups. Methods: Previously published research undertaken by the team, including a qualitative study with 20 patients and a review of the literature, were used to derive a longlist of potential outcomes. Outcomes were prioritised for inclusion in the COS using a three-round online Delphi survey. A multi-stakeholder, consensus meeting was conducted to agree upon the final COS and to provide a recommendation for a single outcome measure for each outcome in the COS. Results: Forty-eight participants were recruited across four stakeholder groups (researchers, patients, clinicians, and service-planners/policymakers). A total of 42 participants (87.5%) completed all three rounds of the surveys. Sixty-two outcomes were considered for inclusion in the COS throughout the Delphi process. A total of 15 participants attended the consensus meeting where they agreed upon the final COS and accompanying measurement instruments: fall incidence, injurious fall incidence, quality of life, falls self-efficacy, fear of falling, activity curtailment due to fear of falling, and cost-effectiveness. Attendees at the consensus meeting recommended that the proposed mechanism of impact of an intervention is considered when selecting additional outcomes outside of those in the COS to assess. Conclusions: This study identified a COS for evaluating the effectiveness of mixed-diagnosis falls prevention interventions for people with MS, PD and stroke. It is recommended that this COS and accompanying measurement instruments be used in all future trials in this research area so that findings can be combined and compared.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicola O’Malley & Susan Coote & Fiona McCullough Staunton & Eileen O’Connor & Amanda M Clifford, 2023. "A core outcome set for evaluating the effectiveness of mixed-diagnosis falls prevention interventions for people with Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s Disease and stroke," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(11), pages 1-22, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0294193
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294193
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0294193
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0294193&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0294193?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0294193. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.