Aims
With treatment-related improvements in survival, lung cancer rehabilitation is essential. Significant heterogeneity exists in the outcomes and instruments used to evaluate the impact of rehabilitation. The aim of this research was to develop a core set of lung cancer rehabilitation outcomes for use in clinical practice.
Methods
An international Delphi consensus study involving consumer, healthcare professional and researcher stakeholder panels was conducted. To develop the potential list of outcomes, preparatory work involved 1) an overview of systematic reviews; and 2) focus groups and individual interviews with people with lung cancer. Participants rated the importance of each outcome (1-9 point Likert scale) over two survey rounds. Consensus criteria for each panel included ‘retain outcome’ if >70% of participants scored 7-9 (critical to include) and <15% scored 1-3 (not important); and ‘remove outcome’ if <50% of participants scored 7-9.
Results
One-hundred and twelve participants from 19 countries completed round 1 and 85% (95/112) completed round 2 (consumers n=8/11, healthcare professionals n=46/56 and researchers n=41/45). Twenty-seven outcomes were included in round 1, with an additional two outcomes (survival and frailty) added in round 2. Consensus was achieved after two survey rounds. The outcomes reaching consensus as ‘critical to include’ in the lung cancer rehabilitation core outcome set by all stakeholder groups were breathlessness, activities of daily living, physical function, health-related quality of life, emotional and mental well-being and pain. No outcomes met the consensus criteria for removal.
Conclusions
Consensus was achieved across each stakeholder group regarding six core outcomes to be used in clinical practice to evaluate lung cancer rehabilitation programs. The next stage of this project will include a second Delphi study to reach consensus regarding use of a single instrument for measuring each of these outcomes.
Registration: Prospectively registered on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database (www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2086).