Core outcome sets (COS) help to minimise bias in trials and facilitate evidence synthesis. Delphi surveys are increasingly being used as part of a wider process to reach consensus about what outcomes should be included in a COS. Qualitative research can be used to inform the development of Delphi surveys. This is an advance in the field of COS development and one which is potentially valuable; however, little guidance exists for COS developers on how best to use qualitative methods and what the challenges are. This paper aims to provide early guidance on the potential role and contribution of qualitative research in this area. We hope the ideas we present will be challenged, critiqued and built upon by others exploring the role of qualitative research in COS development. This paper draws upon the experiences of using qualitative methods in the pre-Delphi stage of the development of three different COS. Using these studies as examples, we identify some of the ways that qualitative research might contribute to COS development, the challenges in using such methods and areas where future research is required. Qualitative research can help to identify what outcomes are important to stakeholders; facilitate understanding of why some outcomes may be more important than others, determine the scope of outcomes; identify appropriate language for use in the Delphi survey and inform comparisons between stakeholder data and other sources, such as systematic reviews. Developers need to consider a number of methodological points when using qualitative research: specifically, which stakeholders to involve, how to sample participants, which data collection methods are most appropriate, how to consider outcomes with stakeholders and how to analyse these data. A number of areas for future research are identified. Qualitative research has the potential to increase the research community’s confidence in COS, although this will be dependent upon using rigorous and appropriate methodology. We have begun to identify some issues for COS developers to consider in using qualitative methods to inform the development of Delphi surveys in this article.

Study aim: The aim of this project is to identify from a range of sources the factors associated with the success of a health impact assessment (HIA) in integrating health considerations into the final decision and implementation of a planned policy, programme, or project. Design: Three methods were adopted: (a) a review of HIA case studies; (b) a review of commentaries, reviews and discussion papers relating to HIA and decision making; and (c) an email survey of a purposive sample of HIA academics, HIA practitioners, and policymakers. Information was captured on the following characteristics: information on the year undertaken; geopolitical level; setting; sector; HIA type; methods and techniques used; identification of assessors. Main results: Two groups of factors were identified relating to the decision making environment and to the technical conduct of the HIA. With regard to the environment, striking a balance between decision maker ownership and HIA credibility; organisational, statutory and policy commitment to HIA, and the provision of realistic, non-controversial recommendations were cited as enablers to the integration of HIA findings into the decision making process. Barriers included a lack of knowledge of the policymaking environment by those conducting HIA. Regarding factors relating to the conduct of the HIA: use of a consistent methodological approach; inclusion of empirical evidence on health impacts; timing of the HIA congruent with the decision making process; involvement of expert HIA assessors; and shaping of recommendations to reflect organisational priorities were cited as enablers while lack of a standardised methodology; lack of resources and use of jargon were cited as barriers. Conclusions: The findings emphasise the importance of considering the politico-administrative environment in which HIA operates. The extent to which HIA fits the requirements of organisations and decision makers may be as important as the technical methods adopted to undertake it.

Objective To describe the current methods used by English medical schools to identify prospective medical students for admission to the five year degree course. Design Review study including documentary analysis and interviews with admissions tutors. Setting All schools (n = 22) participating in the national expansion of medical schools programme in England. Results Though there is some commonality across schools with regard to the criteria used to select future students (academic ability coupled with a “well rounded” personality demonstrated by motivation for medicine, extracurricular interests, and experience of team working and leadership skills) the processes used vary substantially. Some schools do not interview; some shortlist for interview only on predicted academic performance while those that shortlist on a wider range of non-academic criteria use various techniques and tools to do so. Some schools use information presented in the candidate's personal statement and referee's report while others ignore this because of concerns over bias. A few schools seek additional information from supplementary questionnaires filled in by the candidates. Once students are shortlisted, interviews vary in terms of length, panel composition, structure, content, and scoring methods. Conclusion The stated criteria for admission to medical school show commonality. Universities differ greatly, however, in how they apply these criteria and in the methods used to select students. Different approaches to admissions should be developed and tested.

Eye disease can be devastating. The most feared impact is sight loss, but in a number of ophthalmic conditions, there can be wide-ranging systemic, psychological, emotional and social effects of both the disease and its treatment. External tests of visual function, such as visual acuity, are inadequate to understand the overall impact of ophthalmic disease on a patient’s functional vision or daily life. This can lead to a discordance between the patient’s priorities and perspective on the one hand and the efforts of clinicians and other stakeholders on the other hand. In this review, we discuss how the patient is uniquely placed to understand the impact of the disease and can use that position to transform ophthalmic care at the individual and collective level, from research to care delivery. We highlight how the “patient voice” can contribute to key areas, including priority setting in the research agenda, communicating the wide-ranging impact of disease and its treatment as assessed through qualitative research, identifying the outcome measures that matter to the patient through core outcome set development and reporting these outcomes through appropriate patient-reported outcome measures. We also consider the increasing power of the patient voice on health institutions, ranging from broadcasting an individual’s experience of care he/she has received to patient societies influencing future health policy. Finally, we reflect on the challenges that need to be overcome for the patient voice to increasingly influence and improve the delivery of eye care in the future.

Background: Recent recommendations for the reorganization of cancer services emphasize the importance of a ‘minimal acceptable volume of work’. The influence of both hospital and surgical workload has been examined using a population-based series of patients with colorectal cancer. Methods: Nine hundred and twenty-seven patients with primary colorectal cancer diagnosed during the period 1 January to 30 June 1993 were identified from the North Western Regional Cancer Registry. Case notes were reviewed for information on patient age and sex, histological diagnosis, disease stage, degree of tumour differentiation, mode of admission, identity of operating surgeon, timing of operative procedure, and use of radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was then constructed to examine, simultaneously, the effects of patient-, disease- and health service-related variables on survival. Results: Age, tumour stage and differentiation, and mode of admission were revealed as significant independent prognostic variables. After adjusting for these variables, neither operator grade (consultant versus junior), consultant workload nor hospital throughput were identified as independently influencing patient survival. Conclusion: The results of this study do not support an association between volume of work and patient outcome.