Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Self-management interventions for adults living with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): The development of a Core Outcome Set for COMPAR-EU project

  • Estela Camus-García,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Avedis Donabedian Research Institute (FAD), Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

  • Ana Isabel González-González ,

    Roles Investigation, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    aigonzalez@fadq.org

    Affiliations Avedis Donabedian Research Institute (FAD), Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, Institute of General Practice, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany, Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Spain

  • Monique Heijmans,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, The Netherlands

  • Ena Niño de Guzmán,

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre Barcelona, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Public Health, Biomedical Research Institute San Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain

  • Claudia Valli,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Paediatrics, Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Preventive Medicine, Universidad Atónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre Barcelona, Biomedical Research Institute San Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain

  • Jessica Beltran,

    Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre Barcelona, Biomedical Research Institute San Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain

  • Hector Pardo-Hernández,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre Barcelona, Biomedical Research Institute San Pau (IIB Sant Pau) - CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain

  • Lyudmil Ninov,

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation European Patients’ Forum (EPF), Brussels, Belgium

  • Valentina Strammiello,

    Roles Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation European Patients’ Forum (EPF), Brussels, Belgium

  • Kaisa Immonen,

    Roles Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation European Patients’ Forum (EPF), Brussels, Belgium

  • Dimitris Mavridis,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Primary Education, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece

  • Marta Ballester,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Avedis Donabedian Research Institute (FAD), Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Spain

  • Rosa Suñol,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Avedis Donabedian Research Institute (FAD), Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Spain

  • Carola Orrego

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Avedis Donabedian Research Institute (FAD), Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Spain

Self-management interventions for adults living with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): The development of a Core Outcome Set for COMPAR-EU project

  • Estela Camus-García, 
  • Ana Isabel González-González, 
  • Monique Heijmans, 
  • Ena Niño de Guzmán, 
  • Claudia Valli, 
  • Jessica Beltran, 
  • Hector Pardo-Hernández, 
  • Lyudmil Ninov, 
  • Valentina Strammiello, 
  • Kaisa Immonen
PLOS
x

Abstract

Background

A large body of evidence suggests that self-management interventions (SMIs) may improve outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, accurate comparisons of the relative effectiveness of SMIs are challenging, partly due to heterogeneity of outcomes across trials and uncertainty about the importance of these outcomes for patients. We aimed to develop a core set of patient-relevant outcomes (COS) for SMIs trials to enhance comparability of interventions and ensure person-centred care.

Methods

We undertook an innovative approach consisting of four interlinked stages: i) Development of an initial catalogue of outcomes from previous EU-funded projects and/or published studies, ii) Scoping review of reviews on patients and caregivers’ perspectives to identify outcomes of interest, iii) Two-round Delphi online survey with patients and patient representatives to rate the importance of outcomes, and iv) Face-to-face consensus workshop with patients, patient representatives, health professionals and researchers to develop the COS.

Results

From an initial list of 79 potential outcomes, 16 were included in the COS plus one supplementary outcome relevant to all participants. These were related to patient and caregiver knowledge/competence, self-efficacy, patient activation, self-monitoring, adherence, smoking cessation, COPD symptoms, physical activity, sleep quality, caregiver quality of life, activities of daily living, coping with the disease, participation and decision-making, emergency room visits/admissions and cost effectiveness.

Conclusion

The development of the COPD COS for the evaluation of SMIs will increase consistency in the measurement and reporting of outcomes across trials. It will also contribute to more personalized health care and more informed health decisions in clinical practice as patients’ preferences regarding COPD outcomes are more systematically included.

Introduction

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide [1,2]. The economic and social burden related to COPD are expected to increase over the coming decades due to the continued exposure to COPD risk factors and the increasing aging of the world’s population [3]. COPD prevalence varies across countries and across different groups within countries (i.e., being male, older and former or current smoker) [4]. It is directly related to the prevalence of tobacco smoking, although in many countries outdoor and indoor air pollution constitute major risk factors [5,6].

The literature suggests that self-management interventions (SMIs) may improve clinical outcomes, quality of life and reduce costs of chronic conditions, including COPD [7,8]. A Cochrane systematic review showed that SMIs along with support from health professionals improve health-related quality of life while decreasing hospitalizations and emergency department visits of COPD patients [9].

Two recent studies, the COMET [10] and the PIC-COPD [11] showed the potential of SMIs for reducing exacerbations and mortality in integrated case management, as well as for increasing physical activity. However, synthesizing the evidence on the relative effectiveness of SMIs for COPD is challenging due to heterogeneity of interventions, lack of clear definitions of self-management components, and variability in the outcomes reported. Moreover, systematic reviews on SMI effectiveness have found insufficient data for some outcomes, which may be suggestive of selective reporting [9,12,13].

SMIs can only be compared across studies when they share some common outcomes. In addition, it is important to create consensus about what outcomes are especially relevant to assess the effects of SMI and how they should be measured. By reaching consensus of a standardized set of outcomes that should be minimally measured and reported in future COPD clinical trials, we will ensure the comparativeness of results and synthesis of the evidence across studies [14]. This outcome set should be relevant for all stakeholders, but especially for patients, as they are the ones primarily responsible for the daily management of their disease. In this study we propose a systematic approach to develop a Core Outcome Set [COS] for measuring the effectiveness of SMIs interventions in COPD from the perspective of both patients and health care professionals. This study is part of COMPAR-EU, an EU-funded project designed to bridge the gap between current knowledge and practice on SMIs in four chronic conditions including COPD.

Material and methods

The COS for SMIs in COPD patients was developed in accordance with the Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Handbook [14] and the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) guidelines [15]. This study was conducted according to a protocol previously published [16]. The COMPAR-EU COS approach involved four interlinked stages that are described below and summarized in Fig 1.

thumbnail
Fig 1. Overall study design of core outcome set for COPD.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247522.g001

Stage 1. Development of an initial catalogue of outcomes

Data sources and searches.

We developed an initial catalogue of outcomes from a literature review of two overviews of systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of SMIs for chronic diseases: i) PRO-STEP (Promoting Self-Management for Chronic Diseases in the EU) [17] and ii) EMPATHiE (Empowering Patients in the Management of Chronic Diseases) [18]. Both reviews [17,18] were performed by the research team and were considered as the starting data source to build the initial list of outcomes. We additionally searched for COPD COS in relevant organizations databases such as COMET [10] and ICHOM [International Consortium for Outcomes Health Measurement] [19], to discard the existence of COS on this area and avoid work duplication as recommended by the COMET handbook [20]. The syntax used for the additional literature review in PubMed was the following: (pulmonary disease, chronic obstructive "[MeSH Terms] AND "patient preference"[MeSH Terms]) AND "outcome assessment (health care)"[MeSH Terms]; "pulmonary disease, chronic obstructive"[MeSH Terms] AND "core outcome set"[All Fields].

Study selection.

We included systematic reviews and individual studies that reported outcomes on SMIs for patients with COPD. We excluded systematic reviews that did not report a final list of outcomes or individual studies where the final list of outcomes was not developed considering patients’ input, experiences or values and preferences.

We screened title and abstracts and assessed eligible full-text articles independently. In case of disagreement, reviewers reached consensus or consulted with a third reviewer from the review team. Reviewers checked references from included studies to identify other potentially eligible studies.

Data extraction.

Pairs of authors independently extracted the following data from eligible studies: i) study database, ii) type of publication (i.e., published COS, literature review or systematic review), iii) age groups, and iv) list of outcomes.

Data synthesis.

We tabulated and classified the identified outcomes into the following seven categories following the process for the development of the COMPAR-EU taxonomy [21]: i) empowerment components, ii) adherence to expected self-management behaviours, iii) clinical outcomes, iv) patient and informal caregivers’ quality of life, v) perceptions and/or satisfaction with care, vi) healthcare use and vii) costs. The research team reviewed and discussed outcomes and merged them when possible.

Through an iterative process, an external clinician and researcher reviewed and discussed the resulting list of outcomes with multidisciplinary experts from the COMPAR-EU consortium. We prepared a definition of each outcome with the participation of all COMPAR-EU team members. Experts in health literacy and patient representatives adapted the resulting list of outcomes and presented it in plain language. This list of outcomes was to be used in the first round of the Delphi process (Stage 3).

Stage 2. Scoping review of reviews on perspectives of patients and their caregivers regarding self-management

We conducted a scoping review of reviews [22] to identify and describe key concepts related to outcomes by exploring patients’ and caregivers’ preferences and experiences when coping with COPD and its self-management.

Data sources and searches.

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception until February 2018. We applied a content search strategy for values and preferences [23] in combination with terms specific for COPD. We used review filters available in each database. We included the following terms for identifying patients’ perspectives: patient perception, experience, perspective, understanding, preferences and health utilities.

Study selection.

We included reviews of quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods studies that explored the perspectives, experiences, values and preferences of patients and caregivers on SMIs for COPD.

Data extraction.

In a previously pilot-tested data extraction form, we collected the general characteristics and main findings of each review.

Data synthesis.

We conducted a descriptive thematic synthesis including the identification of codes, descriptive themes and main themes relevant to outcomes of SMI for COPD. We paired main emerging themes with the subdomains of the COMPAR-EU taxonomy [21] and mapped the correspondence between themes and the initial catalogue of outcomes. We developed infographics illustrating themes to be used as aid materials during the consensus workshop.

Stage 3. Delphi survey (Round I and II)

To prioritize the outcomes identified, we administered two-round modified Delphi online surveys to a convenience sample. Our sample included patients and patient representatives to ensure that we address outcomes that matter to patients as well as to other stakeholders.

Study population and eligibility criteria.

We included adults diagnosed with COPD and patient representatives who were able to understand and speak English and provided informed consent to participate through the web platform hosting the Delphi rounds. We made efforts to recruit patients considering age, gender, geographical location and education. However, the patients who participated in this study may have been more knowledgeable, motivated and aware of treatment options and legislation than other COPD patients. In the other hand, they may have been more motivated to engage in research and advocacy activities. They may have also been more aware of the needs of other COPD patients and during the discussion it was evident that they wanted to represent the views of COPD patients as a whole and not just their own. As an example, they mentioned that while they were aware of strategies to avoid exacerbations, other patients may be less knowledgeable.

Recruitment strategy.

Participants were identified within the European Patients’ Forum’s EU wide membership network of more than 70 patient organizations [24] and other patient groups (e.g., those involved in ICHOM) [19]. Recruitment started and concluded in February 2018 and ended in May 2018.

Delphi survey.

The first and second Delphi rounds took place between May 2018 and June 2018. All participants received an online survey with the outcomes and definitions. They also received weekly reminders and were able to return to the questionnaire within a 3-week period. Some of the participants were supported by their local organizations when completing it. Participants were asked “How important do you think the following outcomes are to measure the success of self-management in people with COPD?”. COPD outcomes for SMIs were prioritized during the two-round Delphi process using a 1 to 9 Likert scale (1 being the least and 9 being the most important for the self-management of COPD).

During the second round, participants were able to see ratings (average score) from the first round and thus, adjust, confirm or rethink their answers. They were also allowed to deliberate. This process enabled participants to rate the most relevant SMIs outcomes for COPD according to their perspective.

Data synthesis and analysis.

All outcomes were categorized into three groups based on the level of agreement of ratings from the two-round Delphi online surveys as follows (Table 1): i) Group 1 or “high consensus and high importance outcomes”, ii) Group 2 or “low consensus and mixed importance outcomes” and iii) Group 3 or “high consensus of moderate and low importance outcomes”. We used 70% as a cut off for high agreements based on GRADE recommendations, COMET guidelines and previous papers reporting patient-centred core outcome sets that also used these thresholds [20,25,26].

Stage 4. Consensus workshop and final COPD COS

The final stage of the COPD COS development was a two and a half-day, in-person consensus workshop held in July 2018 in Berlin (Germany). The aim of the workshop was achieving consensus on the most important outcomes to include in the final COPD COS for the COMPAR-EU project. COPD patients and patient representatives who participated in the two Delphi rounds, health professionals and researchers were invited to participate. Researchers and health professionals were selected from a purposive sample of a heterogeneous group of health professionals representing relevant specialties on the care of patients with COPD (general practitioners, specialists, nurses…) and researchers that came from seven collaborating partner-teams, who knew the process well and could participate on the ultimate objective of facilitating dialogue between patients, patient representatives and health professionals during the consensus workshop.

Participants received the results of the two-round Delphi survey (stage 3), and infographics illustrating themes, by outcome, from the scoping review (stage 2) one week before the consensus workshop which were used as additional material for free consultation. We organised outcomes according to a preliminary version of the outcome COMPAR-EU taxonomy [21]. We sorted them by level of agreement as described previously. The COMPAR-EU research team led step-by-step the flow of the discussion to address potential discrepancies across stakeholders (Fig 2). The group worked on prioritizing and selecting a maximum of 15 outcomes and up to five supplementary outcomes from those that had remained from the Delphi survey results. Participants selected outcomes through an iterative voting (secret vote) and discussion process. Outcomes that were closely related were merged. Once a preliminary list was agreed upon after voting and discussing, participants further reviewed the included outcomes and reached an agreement on the final version of the COPD COS.

Ethics statement.

Ethical approval was obtained by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of University Institute for Primary Care Research–IDIAP Jordi Gol in March 2018. All patients and other stakeholders provided written informed consent prior to participation.

Results

Stage 1. Development of an initial catalogue of outcomes

Study selection.

The literature review of previous EU funded projects (PRO-STEP [17] and EMPATHiE [18]) identified records focusing on SMIs in chronic diseases in general. We included 22 systematic reviews specific to COPD [2748] from PRO-STEP. The additional search in COMET [10], ICHOM [19] and snowballing, which included i) looking at suggestions of similar studies in the search databases, ii) looking at the references of eligible studies, and iii) re-running searches using terms from eligible studies, yielded 23 articles. After full-text appraisal, we included five studies [4953]; one study was excluded because it did not report the list of outcomes [54].

Study characteristics.

The five included studies reported: i) a summary of outcomes for COPD pharmacological trials from lung function to biomarkers created by the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society Task Force [49], ii) a review of instruments used to measure symptom response in pharmacological trials [50], iii) a review of articles determining themes identified as most important by COPD patients for any aspect of care of COPD [51], iv) a review assessing clinical outcomes in COPD mainly used on current published data [53], and v) a study addressing patient preferences regarding the expectations related to treatment of COPD.

List of outcomes and outcomes classification.

We identified 79 outcomes for the initial list of outcomes. We classified outcomes into seven predefined subdomains based on a taxonomy for SMIs [21]. Table 2 presents the outcomes classification.

Stage 2. Scoping review of reviews on perspectives of patients and their caregivers regarding self-management

Study selection.

Among the 1,031 unique screened references, 27 reviews were included comprising more than 800 studies.

Study characteristics.

Of the 27 reviews for COPD, 16 (59%) were qualitative evidence synthesis [5570], six (22%) quantitative systematic reviews [51,7175], four (15%) were mixed methods research synthesis [7679], and one (4%) was a literature review [80].

The number of included studies ranged from five [73] to 213 [75]. The majority of the reviews (n = 22, 82%) included only the patients’ perspective. The phenomena of interest addressed among reviews were preferences on health states of COPD (n = 5, 18%), experiences with the process of self-management (n = 14, 52%) and experiences with self-management interventions (n = 8, 30%).

Main themes related to SMI outcomes for COPD.

We identified 21 main themes, which are presented in Table 3. These themes were classified under i) empowerment components, ii) adherence to the expected self-management behaviours, iii) clinical-related outcomes, iv) quality of life of patients and caregivers, v) perceptions and/or satisfaction with care, vi) health care use, vii) costs. Table 3 presents the subdomains of the COMPAR-EU taxonomy and the related identified themes for COPD.

thumbnail
Table 3. Main themes related to COPD outcomes according to the subdomains from COMPAR-EU taxonomy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247522.t003

Mapping of themes

Of the 79 outcomes from the initial catalogue of outcomes, 45 were covered in the thematic synthesis (57%). All outcomes of the subdomain “empowerment components” were informed by the scoping review findings (n = 4, 100%), while the subdomain “costs” was the least informed subdomain (n = 1, 20%). Fig 3 reports the number of outcomes informed by the thematic synthesis of the scoping review.

thumbnail
Fig 3. Mapping of themes per COMPAR-EU taxonomy subdomain.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247522.g003

COPD infographic

An infographic was developed for the final consensus workshop including the main findings and topic related images (Stage 4). The infographic included the outcomes of the initial catalogue informed by the scoping review, classified according to the preliminary version of the outcome taxonomy (S1 File). This material and results from the Delphi rounds were sent to the consensus workshop participants (stage 4) one week in advance.

Stage 3. Two-round modified Delphi survey

Participants were invited via email. Nine participants accepted the invitation to participate and completed round I and round II of the Delphi online survey. Of these, five (56%) were patients and four (44%) were patient advocates or patients’ representatives. Six (67%) were men, five (56%) were over 65 years old and seven (78%) had higher education (master or doctoral equivalent) (S2 File).

After the two-round Delphi survey, 23 (29%) of the 79 included outcomes were voted as high agreement on high importance (Group A: ≥70% of participants voted 7 to 9 on the Likert scale), eight (10%) as high agreement on non-importance (Group C: ≥70% of participants voted 1 to 3 on the Likert scale) and 48 (61%) voted intermediate agreement on importance (Group B) (Table 1).

Stage 4. Consensus workshop and final COPD core outcome set

Five of the nine patients or patients’ representatives that participated in the Delphi online survey and five health professionals and researchers participated in the face-to-face consensus meeting. Five members of the COMPAR-EU research team participated as facilitators (S3 and S4 Files).

The consensus workshop resulted in 16 outcomes for COPD plus 1 supplementary outcome (Table 4). Within these 16 outcomes, Delphi participants rated eight (50%) as high agreement on high importance, seven (44%) as low agreement and mixed importance rating, and one (6%) as high consensus of moderate and low support. Knowledge was part of the high consensus and high importance outcomes and was rendered as a supplementary outcome.

Discussion

Main findings

The final COS for COPD included 16 outcomes plus 1 supplementary outcome. It represents the first COS developed based on patient preferences for evaluating SMIs in adults living with COPD. The COS incorporated results from a literature review complemented by a participatory process involving patients and patient representatives along with health professionals and researchers in all stages of the process.

Our results in the context of previous research

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first COS where a significant part of the work was led by patient representatives’ organizations (EPF). Although various approaches have been described to develop COS [84,85], it is still uncertain which are the most appropriate. We chose to follow an iterative mixed-method approach involving different methodologies used in previous studies [86]. The COS we present is novel since it focuses specifically on SMIs for COPD. Previous studies have focused on COPD management or other conditions [8789]. Spargo et al. [87] developed a COS for trials investigating the long-term management of bronchiectasis combining an overview of systematic reviews and qualitative studies and a Delphi panel that included mostly health professionals who rated the importance of each outcome initially selected. Verburg et al. [88] developed a standard set of outcome domains and proposed measures for patients with COPD for Dutch primary care physical therapy using a consensus-driven modified RAND-UCLA appropriateness method with relevant stakeholders. Jones et al. [89] created a priority list of measures for a combined COPD and heart failure exercise rehabilitation program through a stakeholders consensus event.

Strengths and limitations

The first list of COS was mainly based on the results from a literature review on three comprehensive overviews of systematic reviews performed in a previous project (PRO-STEP). As such, it incorporates a robust body of evidence vested in previous projects. The COS development aligns with current methodological guidelines for COS development, as it included a participatory process of patients, patient representatives and other key stakeholders in all stages of the process [14]. Therefore, the resulting COS is strongly based on patient preferences while also incorporating the viewpoints of health professionals, researchers and patients’ representatives.

Outcome definitions were adapted to patient accessible language by EPF, which has extensive experience working with and presenting research material to patients in an intelligible manner. This ensured the comprehensibility of the process and the applicability of the results.

Our work is subject to some limitations. The number of participants during the Delphi process was small but the minimum number of patients that had to complete the two Delphi rounds was achieved. We are confident that this shortcoming was overcome via the further deliberations that took place during the workshop. For the workshop, since only five of nine patients from Delphi participated in the consensus, we cannot rule out potential of attrition bias. Lastly, our sample in the Delphi and the consensus workshop may not be entirely representative of the population of patients with COPD. They could represent very motivated individuals or well-informed patients with high education or digital skills. However, and given the resources available, it would not have been feasible to adopt methodology different from electronic surveys (e.g., in-person interviews or surveys) to reach out to participants that are more diverse.

Implications for practice and research

The identified COS will inform a series of systematic reviews and network meta-analysis (NMA) about the effectiveness of SMIs as part of the COMPAR-EU project. We are confident that the COPD COS reflects the preferences of all key stakeholders and that it might be applicable with context adaptation to wide range of settings across Europe and the world. Future research evaluating SMIs for COPD should, as a minimum, include the outcomes in the proposed COS. Further work is needed to identify and provide guidance on the most appropriate measures for each outcome, on the right instruments or approaches to measure these outcomes, and on the length of follow up. Moreover, it will be important to identify strategies for fostering the collection of this information, the role of the different providers, and the settings where these outcomes can be assessed.

Conclusions

We have developed the first COS for SMIs in COPD. This COS will increase consistency in the reporting of results that are relevant to patients across trials evaluating SMIs for COPD. This COS will enhance evidence synthesis of COPD patient-relevant outcomes and will decisively support research and overall field development. It will improve informed health-decision making in clinical practice and will increase the certainty of evidence to guide policy-making and clinical practice regarding SMI in COPD patients.

Supporting information

S2 File. Delphi online survey participant characteristics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247522.s002

(PDF)

S3 File. Consensus workshop participants characteristics–patients/patient representatives.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247522.s003

(PDF)

S4 File. Consensus workshop participants characteristics–health professionals and researchers.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247522.s004

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all patients and patient representatives who participated in this project. Their real life-experiential knowledge was invaluable for the development of this COS.

The COMPAR-EU group: Aretj-Angeliki Veroniki (University of Ioannina, Department of Primary Education), Carlos Canelo-Aybar (Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre–Biomedical 400 Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau)), Christos Christogiannis (University of Ioannina, Department of Primary Education), Claudio Alfonso Rocha Calderón (Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre–Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau) and CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP)), Cordula Wagner (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, (NIVEL)), Giorgos Seitidis (University of Ioannina, Department of Primary Education), Jany Rademakers (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, (NIVEL)), Katerina-Maria Kontouli (University of Ioannina, Department of Primary Education), Karla Salas (Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre–Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau)), Kevin Pacheco-Barrios (Avedis Donabedian Research Institute (FAD)), Kostas Aligiannis (European Patients’ Forum), Marieke van der Gaag (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, (NIVEL)), Matthijs Michaël Versteegh (Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam), Montserrat León (Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre–Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau)), Nina Adrion (OptiMedis AG), Oliver Groene (OptiMedis AG), Pablo Alonso (Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre–Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau) and CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP)), Rune Poortvliet (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, (NIVEL)), Sofia Tsokani (University of Ioannina, Department of Primary Education), Stavros Nikolakopoulos (University of Ioannina, Department of Primary Education), Stella Zevgiti (University of Ioannina, Department of Primary Education), Jessica Zafra (Avedis Donabedian Research Institute (FAD)).

Patients and public involvement

Patients were a key component of this phase of the COMPAR-EU project. Their interests are represented by the European Patients’ Forum (EPF).

References

  1. 1. Lozano R, Naghavi M, Foreman K, Lim S, Shibuya K, Aboyans V, et al. Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012 Dec;380(9859):2095–128. pmid:23245604
  2. 2. Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, Lozano R, Michaud C, Ezzati M, et al. Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012 Dec;380(9859):2163–96. pmid:23245607
  3. 3. Mathers CD, Loncar D. Projections of Global Mortality and Burden of Disease from 2002 to 2030. Samet J, editor. PLoS Med. 2006 Nov 28;3(11):e442. pmid:17132052
  4. 4. Whitmore G, Aaron S, Gershon A, Gao Y, Yang J. Influence of country-level differences on COPD prevalence. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2016 Sep;Volume 11:2305–13. pmid:27698561
  5. 5. Eisner MD, Anthonisen N, Coultas D, Kuenzli N, Perez-Padilla R, Postma D, et al. An Official American Thoracic Society Public Policy Statement: Novel Risk Factors and the Global Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Sep;182(5):693–718. pmid:20802169
  6. 6. Salvi SS, Barnes PJ. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in non-smokers. Lancet. 2009 Aug;374(9691):733–43. pmid:19716966
  7. 7. Newham J, Presseau J, Heslop-Marshall K, Russell S, Ogunbayo O, Netts P, et al. Features of self-management interventions for people with COPD associated with improved health-related quality of life and reduced emergency department visits: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017 Jun;Volume 12:1705–20. pmid:28652723
  8. 8. Murphy LA, Harrington P, Taylor SJ, Teljeur C, Smith SM, Pinnock H, et al. Clinical-effectiveness of self-management interventions in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: An overview of reviews. Chron Respir Dis. 2017 Aug 24;14(3):276–88. pmid:28774200
  9. 9. Lenferink A, Brusse-Keizer M, van der Valk PD, Frith PA, Zwerink M, Monninkhof EM, et al. Self-management interventions including action plans for exacerbations versus usual care in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 4. pmid:28777450
  10. 10. Kessler R, Casan-Clara P, Koehler D, Tognella S, Viejo JL, Dal Negro RW, et al. COMET: a multicomponent home-based disease-management programme versus routine care in severe COPD. Eur Respir J. 2018 Jan 11;51(1):1701612. pmid:29326333
  11. 11. Rose L, Istanboulian L, Carriere L, Thomas A, Lee H-B, Rezaie S, et al. Program of Integrated Care for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Multiple Comorbidities (PIC COPD +): a randomised controlled trial. Eur Respir J. 2018 Jan 11;51(1):1701567. pmid:29326330
  12. 12. Shaw G, Whelan ME, Armitage LC, Roberts N, Farmer AJ. Are COPD self-management mobile applications effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis. npj Prim Care Respir Med. 2020 Dec 1;30(1):11. pmid:32238810
  13. 13. Kaptein A, Fischer M, Scharloo M. Self-management in patients with COPD: theoretical context, content, outcomes, and integration into clinical care. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2014 Sep;907.
  14. 14. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017 Jun 20;18(S3):280. pmid:28681707
  15. 15. Kirkham JJ, Davis K, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Tunis S, et al. Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations. PLOS Med. 2017 Nov 16;14(11):e1002447. pmid:29145404
  16. 16. Ballester M, Orrego C, Heijmans M, Alonso-Coello P, Versteegh MM, Mavridis D, et al. Comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of self-management interventions in four high-priority chronic conditions in Europe (COMPAR-EU): a research protocol. BMJ Open. 2020 Jan 19;10(1):e034680. pmid:31959612
  17. 17. PRO-STEP Consortium. Promoting self-management for chronic diseases in the EU-PROSTEP project. 2018.
  18. 18. EMPATHiE Consortium. EMPATHiE, empowering patients in the management of chronic diseases. Final Summary Report. 2014.
  19. 19. ICHOM. International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement [Internet]. https://www.ichom.org/why-measure-outcomes/.
  20. 20. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, et al. The COMET Handbook: Version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18(Suppl 3):1–50. pmid:28681707
  21. 21. Orrego C, Ballester M, Pacheco-Barrios K, Camus E, Heymans M, Groene O, et al. Development and external validation of a comprehensive Taxonomy of Self-Management Interventions in chronic conditions: the COMPAR-EU taxonomy. In 2019.
  22. 22. Niño de Guzmán E, Martínez-García L, González AI, Heijmans M, Huaringa J, Immonen K, et al. The perspectives of patients and their caregivers on self-management interventions for chronic conditions: a protocol for a mixed-methods overview. F1000Research. 2020 Feb 18;9:120.
  23. 23. Selva A, Solà I, Zhang Y, Pardo-Hernandez H, Haynes RB, Martínez García L, et al. Development and use of a content search strategy for retrieving studies on patients’ views and preferences. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017 Dec 30;15(1):126. pmid:28851437
  24. 24. European Patients Forum [Internet]. 2020. https://www.eu-patient.eu.
  25. 25. Webbe J, Brunton G, Ali S, Duffy JM, Modi N, Gale C. Developing, implementing and disseminating a core outcome set for neonatal medicine. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2017 Jul;1(1):e000048. pmid:29637104
  26. 26. Potter S, Holcombe C, Ward JA, Blazeby JM. Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery. Br J Surg. 2015 Oct;102(11):1360–71. pmid:26179938
  27. 27. McLean S, Nurmatov U, Liu JL, Pagliari C, Car J, Sheikh A. Telehealthcare for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jul 6. pmid:21735417
  28. 28. Vieira DSR, Maltais F, Bourbeau J. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2010 Mar;16(2):134–43. pmid:20104176
  29. 29. McCarthy B, Casey D, Devane D, Murphy K, Murphy E, Lacasse Y. Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2015 Feb 23;(2):CD003793. pmid:25705944
  30. 30. Majothi S, Jolly K, Heneghan NR, Price MJ, Riley RD, Turner AM, et al. Supported self-management for patients with COPD who have recently been discharged from hospital: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015;10:853–67. pmid:25995625
  31. 31. Polisena J, Tran K, Cimon K, Hutton B, McGill S, Palmer K, et al. Home telehealth for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare. 2010;16(3):120–7. pmid:20197355
  32. 32. Flodgren G, Rachas A, Farmer AJ, Inzitari M, Shepperd S. Interactive telemedicine: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 7;(9):CD002098. pmid:26343551
  33. 33. Jolly K, Majothi S, Sitch AJ, Heneghan NR, Riley RD, Moore DJ, et al. Self-management of health care behaviors for COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2016;11:305–26. pmid:26937183
  34. 34. Walters JA, Turnock AC, Walters EH, Wood-Baker R. Action plans with limited patient education only for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2010 May 12;(5):CD005074. pmid:20464737
  35. 35. Gosselink R, De Vos J, van den Heuvel SP, Segers J, Decramer M, Kwakkel G. Impact of inspiratory muscle training in patients with COPD: what is the evidence? Eur Respir J. 2011 Feb;37(2):416–25. pmid:21282809
  36. 36. Bryant J, Bonevski B, Paul C, McElduff P, Attia J. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of behavioural smoking cessation interventions in selected disadvantaged groups. Addiction. 2011 Sep;106(9):1568–85. pmid:21489007
  37. 37. Cindy Ng LW, Mackney J, Jenkins S, Hill K. Does exercise training change physical activity in people with COPD? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Chron Respir Dis. 2012 Feb;9(1):17–26. pmid:22194629
  38. 38. Hamilton FL, Greaves F, Majeed A, Millett C. Effectiveness of providing financial incentives to healthcare professionals for smoking cessation activities: systematic review. Tob Control. 2013 Jan;22(1):3–8. pmid:22123941
  39. 39. Kruis AL, Smidt N, Assendelft WJJ, Gussekloo J, Boland MRS, Rutten-van Mölken M, et al. Integrated disease management interventions for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2013 Oct 10;(10):CD009437. pmid:24108523
  40. 40. Collins PF, Stratton RJ, Elia M. Nutritional support in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Jun;95(6):1385–95. pmid:22513295
  41. 41. Tan J-Y, Chen J-X, Liu X-L, Zhang Q, Zhang M, Mei L-J, et al. A Meta-Analysis on the Impact of Disease-Specific Education Programs on Health Outcomes for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Geriatr Nurs (Minneap). 2012 Jul;33(4):280–96. pmid:22595334
  42. 42. Bryant J, McDonald VM, Boyes A, Sanson-Fisher R, Paul C, Melville J. Improving medication adherence in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review. Respir Res. 2013 Oct 20;14:109. pmid:24138097
  43. 43. Health Quality Ontario. In-home care for optimizing chronic disease management in the community: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2013;13(5):1–65. pmid:24167539
  44. 44. Quiñones AR, Richardson J, Freeman M, Fu R, O’Neil ME, Motu’apuaka M, et al. Educational group visits for the management of chronic health conditions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Apr;95(1):3–29. pmid:24468199
  45. 45. Prieto-Centurion V, Markos MA, Ramey NI, Gussin HA, Nyenhuis SM, Joo MJ, et al. Interventions to reduce rehospitalizations after chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations. A systematic review. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2014 Mar;11(3):417–24. pmid:24423379
  46. 46. Li G, Yuan H, Zhang W. Effects of Tai Chi on health related quality of life in patients with chronic conditions: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Complement Ther Med. 2014 Aug;22(4):743–55. pmid:25146080
  47. 47. Zwerink M, Brusse-Keizer M, van der Valk PDLPM, Zielhuis GA, Monninkhof EM, van der Palen J, et al. Self management for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2014 Mar 19;(3):CD002990. pmid:24665053
  48. 48. Harrison SL, Janaudis-Ferreira T, Brooks D, Desveaux L, Goldstein RS. Self-management following an acute exacerbation of COPD: a systematic review. Chest. 2015 Mar;147(3):646–61. pmid:25340578
  49. 49. Cazzola M, MacNee W, Martinez FJ, Rabe KF, Franciosi LG, Barnes PJ, et al. Outcomes for COPD pharmacological trials: from lung function to biomarkers. Eur Respir J. 2008 Feb 1;31(2):416–69. pmid:18238951
  50. 50. Jadad A, Rizo C, Cubillos P, Ståhl E. Measuring symptom response to pharmacological interventions in patients with COPD: a review of instruments used in clinical trials. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004 Dec 24;20(12):1993–2005. pmid:15701216
  51. 51. Einarson T, Bereza B, Nielsen A, Hemels M, Valgardsson S. Patient preferences in severe COPD and asthma: a comprehensive literature review. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015 Apr;739. pmid:25914530
  52. 52. Bulcun E, Ekici A, Ekici M. Assessment of patients’ preferences regarding the characteristics associated with the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2014 Apr;9:363–8. pmid:24790426
  53. 53. Glaab T, Vogelmeier C, Buhl R. Outcome measures in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): strengths and limitations. Respir Res. 2010 Dec 17;11(1):79. pmid:20565728
  54. 54. Bjermer L. The Importance of Continuity in Inhaler Device Choice for Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Respiration. 2014;88(4):346–52. pmid:25195762
  55. 55. Brundisini F, Giacomini M, DeJean D, Vanstone M, Winsor S, Smith A. Chronic disease patients’ experiences with accessing health care in rural and remote areas: A systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2013;13(15):1–33. pmid:24228078
  56. 56. Brunton L, Bower P, Sanders C. The Contradictions of Telehealth User Experience in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): A Qualitative Meta-Synthesis. Soyer HP, editor. PLoS One. 2015 Oct 14;10(10):e0139561. pmid:26465333
  57. 57. de Sousa Pinto JM, Martín-Nogueras AM, Morano MTAP, Macêdo TEPM, Arenillas JIC, Troosters T. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients’ experience with pulmonary rehabilitation: A systematic review of qualitative research. Chron Respir Dis. 2013 Aug 29;10(3):141–57. pmid:23897930
  58. 58. Disler RT, Green A, Luckett T, Newton PJ, Inglis S, Currow DC, et al. Experience of Advanced Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014 Dec;48(6):1182–99. pmid:24780181
  59. 59. Giacomini M, DeJean D, Simeonov D, Smith A. Experiences of living and dying with COPD: A systematic review and synthesis of the qualitative empirical literature. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2012;12(13):1–47. pmid:23074423
  60. 60. Gysels M, Bausewein C, Higginson IJ. Experiences of breathlessness: A systematic review of the qualitative literature. Palliat Support Care. 2007 Sep 24;5(3):281–302. pmid:17969832
  61. 61. Harrison C, Britt H, Miller G, Henderson J. Examining different measures of multimorbidity, using a large prospective cross-sectional study in Australian general practice. BMJ Open. 2014;4(7):e004694. pmid:25015470
  62. 62. Kirkpatrick P, Wilson E, Wimpenny P. Support for Older People with COPD in Community Settings: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Reports. 2012;10(57):3649–763. pmid:27820508
  63. 63. Lindenmeyer A, Greenfield SM, Greenfield C, Jolly K. How Do People With COPD Value Different Activities? An Adapted Meta-Ethnography of Qualitative Research. Qual Health Res. 2017 Jan 9;27(1):37–50. pmid:27117959
  64. 64. Mathar H, Fastholm P, Hansen IR, Larsen NS. Why Do Patients with COPD Decline Rehabilitation. Scand J Caring Sci. 2016 Sep;30(3):432–41. pmid:26426088
  65. 65. Russell S, Ogunbayo OJ, Newham JJ, Heslop-Marshall K, Netts P, Hanratty B, et al. Qualitative systematic review of barriers and facilitators to self-management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: views of patients and healthcare professionals. npj Prim Care Respir Med. 2018 Dec 17;28(1):2. pmid:29343739
  66. 66. Sohanpal R, Steed L, Mars T, Taylor SJC. Understanding patient participation behaviour in studies of COPD support programmes such as pulmonary rehabilitation and self-management: a qualitative synthesis with application of theory. npj Prim Care Respir Med. 2015 Dec 17;25(1):15054. pmid:26379121
  67. 67. Gorst SL, Armitage CJ, Brownsell S, Hawley MS. Home Telehealth Uptake and Continued Use Among Heart Failure and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients: a Systematic Review. Ann Behav Med. 2014 Dec 25;48(3):323–36. pmid:24763972
  68. 68. Habraken JM, Willems DL, de Kort SJ, Bindels PJE. Health care needs in end-stage COPD: A structured literature review. Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Oct;68(2):121–30. pmid:17601696
  69. 69. Clari M, Ivziku D, Casciaro R, Matarese M. The Unmet Needs of People with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Findings. COPD J Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2018 Jan 2;15(1):79–88. pmid:29308932
  70. 70. Clari M, Matarese M, Ivziku D, De Marinis MG. Self-Care of People with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Meta-Synthesis. Patient—Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2017 Aug 14;10(4):407–27. pmid:28197788
  71. 71. Dretzke J, Blissett D, Dave C, Mukherjee R, Price M, Bayliss S, et al. The cost-effectiveness of domiciliary non-invasive ventilation in patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2015 Oct;19(81):1–246. pmid:26470875
  72. 72. Jordan RE, Majothi S, Heneghan NR, Blissett DB, Riley RD, Sitch AJ, et al. Supported self-management for patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): an evidence synthesis and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2015 May;19(36):1–516. pmid:25980984
  73. 73. Moayeri F, Hsueh Y-S (Arthur), Clarke P, Dunt D. Do Model-Based Studies in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Measure Correct Values of Utility? A Meta-Analysis. Value Heal. 2016 Jun;19(4):363–73. pmid:27325328
  74. 74. Rose S, Paul C, Boyes A, Kelly B, Roach D. Stigma-related experiences in non-communicable respiratory diseases: A systematic review. Chron Respir Dis. 2017 Aug 23;14(3):199–216. pmid:28111991
  75. 75. Zhang Y, Morgan RL, Alonso-Coello P, Wiercioch W, Bała MM, Jaeschke RR, et al. A systematic review of how patients value COPD outcomes. Eur Respir J. 2018 Jul;52(1):1800222. pmid:30002103
  76. 76. Cox NS, Oliveira CC, Lahham A, Holland AE. Pulmonary rehabilitation referral and participation are commonly influenced by environment, knowledge, and beliefs about consequences: a systematic review using the Theoretical Domains Framework. J Physiother. 2017 Apr;63(2):84–93. pmid:28433238
  77. 77. Kaptein AA, Scharloo M, Fischer MJ, Snoei L, Cameron LD, Sont JK, et al. Illness Perceptions and COPD: An Emerging Field for COPD Patient Management. J Asthma. 2008 Jan 2;45(8):625–9. pmid:18951252
  78. 78. Keating A, Lee A, Holland AE. What prevents people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from attending pulmonary rehabilitation? A systematic review. Chron Respir Dis. 2011 May;8(2):89–99. pmid:21596892
  79. 79. Sørensen SS, Weinreich UM, Ehlers L. Rationale and development of a patient-tailored complex intervention of case management for patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Home Health Care Serv Q. 2017 Oct 2;36(3–4):178–95. pmid:29048248
  80. 80. Rosa F, Bagnasco A, Aleo G, Kendall S, Sasso L. Resilience as a concept for understanding family caregiving of adults with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): an integrative review. Nurs Open. 2017 Apr;4(2):61–75. pmid:28286662
  81. 81. Harrison SL, Apps L, Singh SJ, Steiner MC, Morgan MD, Robertson N. ‘Consumed by breathing’–a critical interpretive meta-synthesis of the qualitative literature. Chronic Illn. 2014 Mar 13;10(1):31–49. pmid:24227018
  82. 82. Brunton L, Bower P, Sanders C. The Contradictions of Telehealth User Experience in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): A Qualitative Meta-Synthesis. Soyer HP, editor. PLoS One. 2015 Oct 14;10(10):e0139561. pmid:26465333
  83. 83. Einarson TR, Bereza BG, Nielsen TA, Hemels MEH. Utilities for asthma and COPD according to category of severity: a comprehensive literature review. J Med Econ. 2015 Jul 3;18(7):550–63. pmid:25735652
  84. 84. Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, et al. Core Outcome Set–STAndards for Reporting: The COS-STAR Statement. PLOS Med. 2016 Oct 18;13(10):e1002148. pmid:27755541
  85. 85. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012 Dec 6;13(1):132. pmid:22867278
  86. 86. Jones JE, Jones LL, Keeley TJH, Calvert MJ, Mathers J. A review of patient and carer participation and the use of qualitative research in the development of core outcome sets. Young B, editor. PLoS One. 2017 Mar 16;12(3):e0172937. pmid:28301485
  87. 87. Spargo M, Ryan C, Downey D, Hughes C. Development of a core outcome set for trials investigating the long-term management of bronchiectasis. Chron Respir Dis. 2019 Jan 3;16:147997231880416. pmid:30278785
  88. 88. Verburg AC, van Dulmen SA, Kiers H, Ypinga JH, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MW, van der Wees PJ. Development of a Standard Set of Outcome Domains and Proposed Measures for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Primary Care Physical Therapy Practice in the Netherlands: a Modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2019 Nov;Volume 14:2649–61. pmid:31819398
  89. 89. Jones AV, Evans RA, Man WD-C, Bolton CE, Breen S, Doherty PJ, et al. Outcome measures in a combined exercise rehabilitation programme for adults with COPD and chronic heart failure: A preliminary stakeholder consensus event. Chron Respir Dis. 2019 Jan 1;16:147997311986795.