Allied health professionals’ views on important outcomes of children’s elective lower limb orthopaedic surgery: a qualitative interview study to inform a core outcome set

References

• Hospital Admitted Patient Care Activity, 2018–19. NHS Digital; 2019 [updated 2019 Sep; cited 2022 Jan 22]. Available from: www.digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-admitted-patient-care-activity/2018-19#key-facts
   Google Scholar
• Foster HE, Jandial S. Musculoskeletal disorders. In: Lissauer T, Carroll W, editors. Illustrated textbook of paediatrics. 4th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2018. p. 451–468.
   Google Scholar
• Kliegman R, Geme J. Nelson textbook of pediatrics. 21st ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Truong WH, Price MJ, Agarwal KN, et al. Utilization of a wide array of nonvalidated outcome scales in pediatric orthopaedic publications: can’t we all measure the same thing? J Pediatr Orthop. 2019;39(2):e153–e158. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000001263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arguelles GR, Shin M, Lebrun DG, et al. The majority of patient-reported outcome measures in pediatric orthopaedic research are used without validation. J Pediatr Orthop. 2021;41(1):e74–e79. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000001659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson P, Altman D, Bagley H, et al. The COMET handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18(Suppl. 3):280. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–89. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vella-Baldacchino M, Perry DC, Roposch R, et al. Research priorities in children requiring elective surgery for conditions affecting the lower limbs: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. BMJ Open. 2019;9(12):e033233. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qu SQ, Dumay J. The qualitative research interview. Qual Res Acc Manag. 2011;8(3):238–264. doi: 10.1108/11766091111162070.
   Google Scholar
• Hinton L, Ryan S. Interviews. In: Pope C, Mays N, editors. Qualitative research in health care. 4th ed. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley Blackwell; 2020. p. 43–55.
   Google Scholar
• Pilbeam C, Anthierens S, Vanderslott S, et al. Methodological and ethical considerations when conducting qualitative interview research with healthcare professionals: reflections and recommendations as a result of a pandemic. Int J Qual Methods. 2022;21:160940692210777. doi: 10.1177/16094069221077763.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britten N. Qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ. 1995;311(6999):251–253. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.6999.251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prior MT. Accomplishing “rapport” in qualitative research interviews: empathetic moments in interaction. Appl Linguist Rev. 2018;9(4):487–511. doi: 10.1515/applirev-2017-0029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillippi J, Lauderdale J. A guide to field notes for qualitative research: context and conversation. Qual Health Res. 2018;28(3):381–388. doi: 10.1177/1049732317697102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly M, Parker N. ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: a critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample size in qualitative research. Qual Res. 2013;13(2):190–197. doi: 10.1177/1468794112446106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog. BMJ. 2001;322(7294):1115–1117. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebele-Mpofu FY. Saturation controversy in qualitative research: complexities and underlying assumptions. A literature review. Cogent Soc Sci. 2020;6(1):1838706. doi: 10.1080/23311886.2020.1838706.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGrath C, Palmgren PJ, Liljedahl M. Twelve tips for conducting qualitative research interviews. Med Teach. 2019;41(9):1002–1006. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1497149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Conceptual thinking for thematic analysis. Qual Psychol. 2022;9(1):3–26. doi: 10.1037/qup0000196.
   Google Scholar
• International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). World Health Organisation; 2022 [updated 2022 Mar; cited 2022 Jun 29]. Available from: www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health
   Google Scholar
• Knaapen M, Hall NJ, van der Lee JH, et al. Establishing a core outcome set for treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis in children: study protocol for an International Delphi Survey. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e028861. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028861.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crudgington H, Collingwood A, Bray L, et al. Mapping epilepsy-specific patient-reported outcome measures for children to a proposed core outcome set for childhood epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2020;112:107372. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2020.107372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mary P, Servais L, Vialle R. Neuromuscular diseases: diagnosis and management. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018;104(1S):S89–S95. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2017.04.019.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beck JJ, Mahan ST, Nowicki P, et al. What is new in pediatric bone health. J Pediatr Orthop. 2021;41(8):e594–e599. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000001896.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaton D, Maxwell L, Grosskleg S, et al. The OMERACT handbook for establishing and implementing core outcomes in clinical trials across the spectrum of rheumatologic conditions. OMERACT; 2021 [cited 2022 Mar 20]. Available from: www.omeract.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/OMERACT-Handbook-Chapter-Final-June_2_2021.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Marson BA, Manning JC, James M, et al. Development of the CORE-Kids core set of outcome domains for studies of childhood limb fractures. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(12):1821–1830. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B.BJJ-2020-2321.R2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fink EL, Maddux AB, Pinto N, et al. A core outcome set for pediatric critical care. Crit Care Med. 2020;48(12):1819–1828. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almoajil H, Toye F, Dawes H, et al. Outcomes of importance to children and young adults with cerebral palsy, their parents and health professionals following lower limb orthopaedics surgery: a qualitative study to inform a core outcome set. Health Expect. 2022;25(3):925–935. doi: 10.1111/hex.13428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leo DG, Jones H, Murphy R, et al. The outcomes of Perthes’ disease. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(5):611–617. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B5.BJJ-2020-0072.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chhina H, Klassen AF, Kopec JA, et al. What matters to children with lower limb deformities: an international qualitative study guiding the development of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021;5(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s41687-021-00299-w.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lindsay A, Oussama A. What’s new in pediatric orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021;103(4):287–294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bina S, Pacey V, Barnes EH, et al. Interventions for congenital talipes equinovarus (clubfoot). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;5(5):CD008602. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008602.pub4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morris C, Liabo K, Wright P, et al. Development of the Oxford Ankle Foot Questionnaire: finding out how children are affected by foot and ankle problems. Child Care Health Dev. 2007;33(5):559–568. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2007.00770.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chhina H, Klassen AF, Bade D, et al. Establishing content validity of LIMB-Q kids: a new patient-reported outcome measure for lower limb deformities. Qual Life Res. 2022;31(9):2805–2818. doi: 10.1007/s11136-022-03140-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allard A, Fellowes A, Shilling V, et al. Key outcomes for children and young people with neurodisability: qualitative research with young people and parents. BMJ Open. 2014;4(4):e004611. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004611.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zola IK. Healthism and disabling medicalisation. In: Illich I, Zola IK, McKnight J, editors. Disabling professions. London: Marion Boyars; 2005. p. 41–68.
   Google Scholar
• Garabedian F. Independent living. In: Cameron C, editor. Disability studies. 1st ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2014. p. 81–84.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas C. Sociologies of disabilities and illness: contested ideas in disability studies and medical sociology. 1st ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Ngangue PA, Forgues C, Nguyen T, et al. Patients, caregivers and health-care professionals’ experience with an interdisciplinary intervention for people with multimorbidity in primary care: a qualitative study. Health Expect. 2020;23(2):318–327. doi: 10.1111/hex.13035.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Health Professions Networks Nursing and Midwifery Human Resources for Health. Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. World Health Organisation; 2010 [cited 2022 Jun 20]. Available from: www.who.int/publications/i/item/framework-for-action-on-interprofessional-education-collaborative-practice
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Chapter 29: multidisciplinary team meetings. National Guidelines Centre; 2018 [cited 2022 Jun 3]. Available from: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng94/evidence/29.multidisciplinary-team-meetings-pdf-172397464668
   Google Scholar
• Kroenke K, Monahan PO, Kean J. Pragmatic characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures are important for use in clinical practice. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(9):1085–1092. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.03.023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar