ORCID Profile
0000-0001-6529-8643
Current Organisations
University of Southampton
,
University of Nottingham School of Medicine
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc.
Date: 19-08-2021
DOI: 10.2196/28878
Abstract: Clinical trials that assess the benefits and harms of an intervention do so by measuring and reporting outcomes. Inconsistent selection and ersity in the choice of outcomes make it challenging to directly compare interventions. To achieve an agreed core set of outcomes, a consensus methodology is recommended, comprising a web-based Delphi survey and a face-to-face consensus meeting. However, UK government regulations to control the pandemic prohibited plans for a face-to-face consensus meeting as part of the Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study. This study aims to evaluate the modifications made by the CROSSSD study team to achieve consensus using web-based methods, but with minimal deviation from the original study protocol. The study team worked with health care users and professionals to translate the planned face-to-face consensus meeting in a web-based format, preserving the key elements of the nominal group technique. A follow-up survey gathered evaluation feedback on the experiences of the 22 participating members. Feedback covered premeeting preparation, the process of facilitated discussions and voting, ability to contribute, and perceived fairness of the outcome. Overall, 98% (53/54) of feedback responses agreed or strongly agreed with the statements given, indicating that the web-based meeting achieved its original goals of open discussion, debate, and voting to agree with a core outcome set for single-sided deafness. Hearing-impaired participants were fully engaged, but there were some methodological challenges. For the participants, challenges included building rapport, understanding, and delivering the tasks in hand. For the study team, challenges included the need for thorough preparation and management of the unpredictability of tasks on the day. Sharing our experiences and lessons learned can benefit future core outcome set developers. Overcoming the challenges of delivering a web-based consensus exercise in the face of the pandemic can be applied more generally to maximize inclusiveness, enhance geographical access, and reduce research costs.
Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc.
Date: 17-03-2021
Abstract: linical trials that assess the benefits and harms of an intervention do so by measuring and reporting i outcomes /i . Inconsistent selection and ersity in the choice of outcomes make it challenging to directly compare interventions. To achieve an agreed core set of outcomes, a consensus methodology is recommended, comprising a web-based Delphi survey and a face-to-face consensus meeting. However, UK government regulations to control the pandemic prohibited plans for a face-to-face consensus meeting as part of the Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study. his study aims to evaluate the modifications made by the CROSSSD study team to achieve consensus using web-based methods, but with minimal deviation from the original study protocol. he study team worked with health care users and professionals to translate the planned face-to-face consensus meeting in a web-based format, preserving the key elements of the nominal group technique. A follow-up survey gathered evaluation feedback on the experiences of the 22 participating members. Feedback covered premeeting preparation, the process of facilitated discussions and voting, ability to contribute, and perceived fairness of the outcome. verall, 98% (53/54) of feedback responses agreed or strongly agreed with the statements given, indicating that the web-based meeting achieved its original goals of open discussion, debate, and voting to agree with a core outcome set for single-sided deafness. Hearing-impaired participants were fully engaged, but there were some methodological challenges. For the participants, challenges included building rapport, understanding, and delivering the tasks in hand. For the study team, challenges included the need for thorough preparation and management of the unpredictability of tasks on the day. haring our experiences and lessons learned can benefit future core outcome set developers. Overcoming the challenges of delivering a web-based consensus exercise in the face of the pandemic can be applied more generally to maximize inclusiveness, enhance geographical access, and reduce research costs. >
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 08-09-2022
DOI: 10.1186/S13063-022-06702-1
Abstract: Single-sided deafness (SSD) has functional, psychological, and social consequences. Interventions for adults with SSD include hearing aids and auditory implants. Benefits and harms (outcome domains) of these interventions are until now reported inconsistently in clinical trials. Inconsistency in reporting outcome measures prevents meaningful comparisons or syntheses of trial results. The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) international initiative used structured communication techniques to achieve consensus among healthcare users and professionals working in the field of SSD. The novel contribution is a set of core outcome domains that experts agree are critically important to assess in all clinical trials of SSD interventions. A long list of candidate outcome domains compiled from a systematic review and published qualitative data, informed the content of a two-round online Delphi survey. Overall, 308 participants from 29 countries were enrolled. Of those, 233 participants completed both rounds of the survey and scored each outcome domain on a 9-point scale. The set of core outcome domains was finalised via a web-based consensus meeting with 12 participants. Votes involved all stakeholder groups, with an approximate 2:1 ratio of professionals to healthcare users participating in the Delphi survey, and a 1:1 ratio participating in the consensus meeting. The first round of the survey listed 44 potential outcome domains, organised thematically. A further five outcome domains were included in Round 2 based on participant feedback. The structured voting at round 2 identified 17 candidate outcome domains which were voted on at the consensus meeting. Consensus was reached for a core outcome domain set including three outcome domains: spatial orientation , group conversations in noisy social situations , and impact on social situations . Seventy-seven percent of the remaining Delphi participants agreed with this core outcome domain set. Adoption of the internationally agreed core outcome domain set would promote consistent assessment and reporting of outcomes that are meaningful and important to all relevant stakeholders. This consistency will in turn enable comparison of outcomes reported across clinical trials comparing SSD interventions in adults and reduce research waste. Further research will determine how those outcome domains should best be measured.
Publisher: Hindawi Limited
Date: 2017
DOI: 10.1155/2017/2723715
Abstract: Background. There is no universally accepted definition for hyperacusis, but in general it is characterised by decreased sound tolerance to ordinary environmental sounds. Despite hyperacusis being prevalent and having significant clinical implications, much remains unknown about current management strategies. Purpose. To establish the current position of research on hyperacusis and identify research gaps to direct future research. Design and S le. Using an established methodological framework, electronic and manual searches of databases and journals identified 43 records that met our inclusion criteria. Incorporating content and thematic analysis approaches, the definitions of hyperacusis, management strategies, and outcome measures were catalogued. Results . Only 67% of the studies provided a definition of hyperacusis, such as “reduced tolerance” or “oversensitivity to sound.” Assessments and outcome measures included Loudness Discomfort Levels, the Hyperacusis Questionnaire, and Tinnitus Retraining Therapy (TRT) interview. Management strategies reported were Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, TRT, devices, pharmacological therapy, and surgery. Conclusions . Management strategies were typically evaluated in patients reporting hyperacusis as a secondary complaint or as part of a symptom set. As such the outcomes reported only provided an indication of their effectiveness for hyperacusis. Randomised Controlled Trials are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of management strategies for patients experiencing hyperacusis.
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 04-2019
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001937
Abstract: This short review article gives an introduction to some of the fundamental concepts and challenges facing measurement in hearing healthcare practice and research. The impact of hearing loss almost always extends beyond the sensory impairment itself, even when the measured degree of audiometric loss is mild. Yet, going beyond audibility, into the realm of measuring impact, takes us into a much more complex and less well-defined space. How does one therefore best measure the therapeutic benefit for evaluating efficacy or for clinical practice audit? Three case studies illustrate approaches to overcome such challenges. Each ex le highlights the importance of thinking critically about what it is one is seeking trying to measure, rather than selecting a questionnaire instrument based simply on its popularity or accessibility. We conclude by highlighting the important role that clinicians can play in collecting clinical data about their preferred instruments so that we have some evidence to inform decisions about good practice (content validity etc.). We would also strongly support open data sharing as we think that this is one of the best ways to make the most rapid progress the field.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2016
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2016
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Kathryn Fackrell.