Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials evaluating shared decision making (SDM) interventions.
METHODS: Following the OMERACT Handbook methods, our Working Group (WG), comprised of 90 members, including 17 patient research partners (PRPs) and 73 clinicians and researchers, had six virtual meetings in addition to email exchanges to develop draft definitions and descriptions. The WG then conducted an international survey of its members to gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions. Finally, the WG members had virtual meetings and e-mail exchanges to review survey results and finalize names, definitions and descriptions of the domains.
RESULTS: WG members contributed to developing the definitions. Fifty-two members representing four continents and 13 countries completed the survey, including 15 PRPs, 33 clinicians and 37 researchers. PRPs and clinicians/researchers agreed with all definitions and descriptions with agreements ranging from 87% to 100%. Respondents suggested wording changes to the names, definitions and descriptions to better reflect the domains. Discussions led to further simplification and clarification to address common questions/concerns about the domains.
CONCLUSIONS: Our WG reached consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. This step is crucial to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set.
CONCLUSIONS: The current study provides consensus-based definitions and descriptions for the domains of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions from patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers. This is a crucial step to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set for trials of SDM interventions.
METHODS: Following the OMERACT Handbook methods, our Working Group (WG), comprised of 90 members, including 17 patient research partners (PRPs) and 73 clinicians and researchers, had six virtual meetings in addition to email exchanges to develop draft definitions and descriptions. The WG then conducted an international survey of its members to gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions. Finally, the WG members had virtual meetings and e-mail exchanges to review survey results and finalize names, definitions and descriptions of the domains.
RESULTS: WG members contributed to developing the definitions. Fifty-two members representing four continents and 13 countries completed the survey, including 15 PRPs, 33 clinicians and 37 researchers. PRPs and clinicians/researchers agreed with all definitions and descriptions with agreements ranging from 87% to 100%. Respondents suggested wording changes to the names, definitions and descriptions to better reflect the domains. Discussions led to further simplification and clarification to address common questions/concerns about the domains.
CONCLUSIONS: Our WG reached consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. This step is crucial to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set.
CONCLUSIONS: The current study provides consensus-based definitions and descriptions for the domains of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions from patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers. This is a crucial step to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set for trials of SDM interventions.
摘要：
目的：为评估共享决策(SDM)干预措施的风湿病学试验评价结果指标(OMERACT)核心领域的定义和描述达成共识。
方法：遵循OMERACT手册方法，我们的工作组(WG)，由90名成员组成，包括17名患者研究合作伙伴（PRP）和73名临床医生和研究人员，除了电子邮件交流之外，还举行了六次虚拟会议，以制定定义和描述草案。工作组随后对其成员进行了国际调查，以就定义和描述达成共识。最后,工作组成员举行了虚拟会议和电子邮件交流，以审查调查结果并最终确定姓名，域的定义和描述。
结果：工作组成员为定义的制定做出了贡献。代表四大洲和13个国家的52名成员完成了调查，包括15个PRP，33名临床医生和37名研究人员。PRP和临床医生/研究人员同意所有定义和描述，协议范围从87％到100％。受访者建议更改名称的措辞，定义和描述，以更好地反映域。讨论导致进一步简化和澄清，以解决有关领域的常见问题/关切。
结论：我们的工作组就SDM干预风湿性试验核心领域的定义和描述达成了共识。这一步对于理解每个领域至关重要，并为确定测量每个领域的工具提供了基础，以纳入核心成果测量集。
结论：当前的研究为OMERACT核心领域集的领域提供了基于共识的定义和描述，用于患者/护理人员的共享决策干预措施。临床医生和研究人员。这是了解每个领域的关键一步，并为确定测量每个领域的工具提供了基础，以纳入SDM干预试验的核心结果测量集。
方法：遵循OMERACT手册方法，我们的工作组(WG)，由90名成员组成，包括17名患者研究合作伙伴（PRP）和73名临床医生和研究人员，除了电子邮件交流之外，还举行了六次虚拟会议，以制定定义和描述草案。工作组随后对其成员进行了国际调查，以就定义和描述达成共识。最后,工作组成员举行了虚拟会议和电子邮件交流，以审查调查结果并最终确定姓名，域的定义和描述。
结果：工作组成员为定义的制定做出了贡献。代表四大洲和13个国家的52名成员完成了调查，包括15个PRP，33名临床医生和37名研究人员。PRP和临床医生/研究人员同意所有定义和描述，协议范围从87％到100％。受访者建议更改名称的措辞，定义和描述，以更好地反映域。讨论导致进一步简化和澄清，以解决有关领域的常见问题/关切。
结论：我们的工作组就SDM干预风湿性试验核心领域的定义和描述达成了共识。这一步对于理解每个领域至关重要，并为确定测量每个领域的工具提供了基础，以纳入核心成果测量集。
结论：当前的研究为OMERACT核心领域集的领域提供了基于共识的定义和描述，用于患者/护理人员的共享决策干预措施。临床医生和研究人员。这是了解每个领域的关键一步，并为确定测量每个领域的工具提供了基础，以纳入SDM干预试验的核心结果测量集。
