Abstract:Introduction: Selecting and collecting data to support appropriate primary and secondary outcomes is a critical step in designing trials that can change clinical practice. In this study, we aimed to investigate who contributes to the process of selecting and collecting trial outcomes, and how these people are involved. This work serves two main purposes: (1) it provides the trials community with evidence to demonstrate how outcomes are currently selected and collected, and (2) it allows people involved in trial design and conduct to pick apart these processes to consider how efficiencies and improvements can be made. Methods: One-with-one semi-structured interviews, supported by a topic guide to ensure coverage of key content. The Framework approach was used for thematic analysis of data, and themes were linked through constant comparison of data both within and across participant groups. Interviews took place between July 2020 and January 2021. Participants were twenty-nine international trialists from various contributor groups, working primarily on designing and/or delivering phase III pragmatic effectiveness trials. Their experience spanned various funders, trial settings, clinical specialties, intervention types, and participant populations. Results: We identified three descriptive themes encompassing the process of primary and secondary outcome selection, collection, and the publication of outcome data. Within these themes, participants raised issues around the following: 1) Outcome selection: clarity of the research question; confidence in selecting trial outcomes and how confidence decreases with increased experience; interplay between different interested parties; how patients and the public are involved in outcome selection; perceived impact of poor outcome selection including poor recruitment and/or retention; and use of core outcome sets. 2) Outcome collection: disconnect between decisions made by outcome selectors and the practical work done by outcome collectors; potential impact of outcome measures on trial participants; potential impact on trial staff workload; and use of routinely collected data. 3) Publication of outcome data: difficulties in finding time to write and revise manuscripts for publication due to time and funding constraints. Participants overwhelmingly focused on the process of outcome selection, a topic they talked about unprompted. When prompted, participants do discuss outcome collection, but poor communication between selectors and collectors at the trial design stage means that outcome selection is rarely linked with the data collection workload it generates. Discussion: People involved in the design and conduct of trials fail to connect decisions around outcome selection with data collection workload. Publication of outcome data and effective dissemination of trial results are hindered due to the project-based culture of some academic clinical trial research.

Research outcomes informing the selection of public health interventions and strategies to implement them: A cross-sectional survey of Australian policy-maker and practitioner preferences

Clinical research imperatives: principles and priorities from the perspective of Allied Health executives and managers

Quantitative measures of health policy implementation determinants and outcomes: a systematic review

Implementation outcome instruments for use in physical healthcare settings: a systematic review

From "our world" to the "real world": Exploring the views and behaviour of policy-influential Australian public health researchers

Evaluating health service outcomes of public involvement in health service design in high-income countries: a systematic review

Does health intervention research have real world policy and practice impacts: testing a new impact assessment tool

Assessing the impact of knowledge communication and dissemination strategies targeted at health policy-makers and managers: an overview of systematic reviews

Utilization of a population health survey in policy and practice: a case study

Research-related knowledge, understanding and practice in public mental health: the voices of social workers and occupational therapists

Acceptability of policies targeting dietary behaviours and physical activity: a systematic review of tools and outcomes

Predicting research use in a public health policy environment: results of a logistic regression analysis

Health policy-makers' perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review

Defining ‘evidence’ in public health: a survey of policymakers’ uses and preferences

Real-world public health interventions demonstrate how research evidence informs program scale-up

How is the use of research evidence in health policy perceived? A comparison between the reporting of researchers and policy-makers

Exploring the perspectives of selectors and collecters of trial outcome data: an international qualitative study

Describing practices of priority setting and resource allocation in publicly funded health care systems of high-income countries

Evidence-based priority-setting: what do the decision-makers think?

The value of health service-based research to health service organisations: a qualitative study with senior health service executives

Population-level, patient-reported outcomes: a case study regarding a public health intervention that involves patients with life-limiting illnesses