Mixed-methods approach to develop an agreed concept on patient relevance: study protocol for the 'PRO patients study'

With respect to patient-centred care and shared decision-making, measuring care effects based on outcomes relevant to patients is becoming increasingly important. Recently, a scoping review of the international literature revealed a wide range of supposedly patient-relevant outcomes and found that there is neither a sound definition of patient relevance nor a consistent set of outcomes relevant to patients. To close this gap, this study aims to develop an agreed concept on patient relevance including a set of outcomes relevant to patients irrespective of diseases, which grades outcomes according to their importance.

This prospective mixed-methods study will integrate the perspectives of patients across diseases, healthcare professionals and researchers. The consensus process will consist of four phases. Based on the results of the recent scoping review, a patient survey will be conducted first, followed by a multiprofessional group discussion. Finally, a two-round online Delphi approach based on data from the previous phases will be applied to agree on a concept.

Ethics approval for the study was granted on 26 August 2020 by the Ethics Commission of Witten/Herdecke University (reference number: 156/2020). In the long run, the implementation of an agreed concept on patient relevance will help improve the comparability of study results regarding the patient benefit and thereby strengthen the role of patients in the decision-making process. Also, the experiences regarding grading outcomes according to importance will help to develop a method on how to individualise clinical trial outcomes according to each patient's individual specifics and priorities in order to more adequately represent the patient perspective in clinical research.

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative (registration number: 1685).