An International Consensus Definition for Contextual Factors: Findings from a Nominal Group Technique

Introduction

Tools such as patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), physical performance measures, and patient experience measures, are used to measure a patient’s health outcomes [1], and are influenced by a number of internal (within the person) and external (outside the person) factors. These factors may include comorbidities [2], cognition and mood [2], socioeconomic and social status [3,4], and care timing and provider specialization [5-7]. Targeted treatment/interventions may also influence outcomes but are commonly moderated and/or mediated by factors such as expectations [8,9], the patient-clinician relationship [10], legal status [11], workers compensation [11], social risk variables [3,4], common factors [12], and natural history [13]. These factors influence disparate individuals differently; consequently, understanding the role that interventions contribute toward patient outcomes becomes challenging.

The ecological landscape in which the clinical encounter occurs, sometimes referred to as therapeutic context, constituting a range of factors increasingly referred to as contextual factors, can also markedly moderate or mediate outcomes [14]. Although increasingly well studied, contextual factors/effects are defined differently across a majority of studies [10, 15-21]. Definitions vary and have included sociodemographic variables [15], person-related factors (race, age, patient beliefs and characteristics) [15], and physical and social environments [16]. At a micro-level, contextual factors have been defined by seemingly disparate terms such as therapeutic alliance [10], one’s role in the environment [17], treatment characteristics [18], healthcare processes [19], placebo or nocebo effects [20], government agencies [17], and cultural beliefs. Occasionally, at a macro-level, they are described as confounders or effect modifiers that are not an outcome of the study, but need to be recognized (and measured) [16,21].

Recently, through a multi-step process, the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) initiative created a consensus definition for contextual factors [21]. The principal goal of OMERACT was to identify contextual factors that were relevant for clinical trials. Initially, OMERACT defined a contextual factor as a “variable that is not an outcome of the study, but needs to be recognized (and measured) to understand the study results. This includes potential confounders and effect modifiers” [22]. Through semi-structured interviews and Delphi research, the OMERACT group further qualified contextual factor types (relevant for clinical trials) as: 1) effect modifying (those that modify the treatment effect); 2) outcome influencing (those that predict the prognosis and may confound results); and 3) measurement affecting (those that influence measurement properties such as reliability and validity).

The OMERACT’s broad definition is useful for understanding results in a clinical trial, in that it exists within a more historic paradigm that seeks to remove effects rather than enhance them. In this role it fails to resolve some of the confusion associated with the multitudes of ways contextual factors are presently defined (specifically, whether internal and external domains are potentially contextual factors), does not include qualifiers to improve one’s understanding, and provides no guidance as to how clinicians may identify contextual factors within clinical encounters in order to enhance positive and minimize negative effects. Subsequently, the objective of this study was to create a consensus definition of contextual factors to better encapsulate this concept both to guide clinicians in clinical scenarios as well as broaden definitions for researchers. This study used a virtual nominal group technique (vNGT) [23], and included researchers and research clinicians from multiple professions who specialized in the study of contextual effects research. Similar to the OMERACT group, we endeavored to identify a consensus definition that reflects the complexity of contextual factors and describe how contextual factors may influence clinical outcomes, but were also interested in a more detailed set of qualifiers that serve as examples of the key areas of the definition.

Methods

Study Procedure

Participants were provided with pre-work prior to the vNGT. Each individual was provided with an article [23] that outlined the vNGT processes and were asked to consider early development of their own versions of a definition for contextual factors.

During the virtual session, a five-stage NGT process following the protocol by Potter et al. [23] was used (Figure 1). The virtual session was conducted using Microsoft Zoom (Microsoft Corp, Redmond, WA) and the moderator for the session was a mixed-methods researcher with a contextual factors background and prior experience with vNGT research and moderation.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 1. The Five Stage Process of a Virtual Nominal Group Technique according to Potter [23].

Stage one (Introduction and Explanation): An introduction and welcome to all participants with an explanation of the purpose and procedure of the workshop.

Stage two (Silent Idea Generation): The question was introduced to the participants: “What is a working definition of contextual factors”? All participants were asked to create a list of ideas that come to mind when considering the question and to place these ideas on a shared Google document. During this stage, all participants were asked not to consult or discuss ideas with each other. A total of 10 minutes was provided for each participant to create their selected definitions.

Stage three (Sharing Ideas): During Stage three, each participant introduced their definitions that were recorded on the google documents. This document was shared on the screen so that all participants can see the list in real time. This stage continued in a round robin format until all ideas had been presented. No debate or discussion occurred at this stage.

Stage four (Group Discussion): Participants were invited to seek verbal explanation or further details about any ideas that were produced during stage three. The moderator ensured that each person was able to contribute and that all ideas were discussed without spending too long on a single idea. At this stage, participants were able to suggest new items for discussion or combining of items to modify the current list. Each participant “owned” each definition and edited the definition only if they agreed on the change requested.

Unique to this vNGT, participants had up to one week to modify or delete their own contributions or request edits to another definition that they did not generate. We elected to provide additional time to edit each person’s definition, since the concept is complex and since there were a variety of definitions presented in Stage two and three, which were further discussed and modified in Stage four.

Stage five (Voting): During stage five, and after the week of modifying or deleting their own contributions, vNGT participants were allowed to “rank order” the definitions generated during stage four. Rank ordering was performed using a Qualtrics survey and a “ranking” function. In this survey, each NGT participant ranked all 12 definitions from 1 (top choice) to 12 (lowest choice).

Modifications of a five round NGT are not uncommon and may be warranted when working with complex populations or topics that require maturation before final evaluation [24]. If consensus voting does not identify a clear ranked winner, a sixth round, which includes revoting on the top ranked choices, can be implemented to assure a true consensus choice [23,24]. Our vNGT used a sixth round of voting to identify a clear consensus definition.

Results

Discussion

The goal of the study was to develop a consensus-derived definition of contextual factors. The study methodology used an vNGT, which is beneficial for identifying problems [25], exploring solutions and establishing priorities, and providing a meaningful and economical method of soliciting contributions from all participants [23]. Our final consensus selection reflects the complexity of a definition of contextual factors and includes: 1) an overall definition, 2) qualifiers that serve as examples of the key areas of the definition and 3) how contextual factors may influence clinical outcomes. We feel this harmonized definition will improve the understanding of contextual factors and will help clinicians recognize their potential role in moderating/mediating these factors to positively impact clinical outcomes. Further, we feel the findings may also improve interpretation of research and deserve additional discussion.

The NGT participants (similar to the OMERACT group [21]) identified the influence of contextual factors as mediators, moderators, or confounding variables and felt that contextual factors included both internal and external factors. These fell into broad categories that included patient characteristics, practitioner characteristics, treatment characteristics, characteristics of the dynamic between the patient and practitioner and characteristics of the setting within which the encounter is being delivered. This suggests that who is enrolled in a study, who provides care in a study, and where that study is performed may influence clinical outcomes. Because of this, studies require careful discussion on these aspects in their methodology and a discussion of their potential to influence outcomes in their results.

Our initial set of 14 definitions identified a number of common elements associated with contextual factors. The biggest differences across initial definitions included whether contextual factors were considered as placebo/nocebo effects, whether the factors were actively or passively perceived (or both), and whether contextual factors were considered moderators of treatment (e.g., age, sex, socioeconomic status), mediators of treatment (e.g., self-efficacy, fear, psychological mood) or both. Discussion during stage three highlighted the inconsistent domains involved in the role of cultural versus political versus power imbalances, whether contextual factors were a measurable mechanism, whether placebo/nocebo effects were a necessity within the definition, if a contextual factor was a “nonspecific” finding, and its role as a prognostic mediator/moderator. Thus, the emerging findings mirror the heterogeneity of conceptual definition and the variability of dimensions associated with contextual factors reported in the literature [14-21]. Our work acknowledged and established an initial synthesis of these complex and important domains, which may in turn be fruitful to consider in future work.

Despite a wide range of clinical backgrounds and research training expertise, we were pleased with the collaborative nature of our vNGT. With appropriate pre-work and judicious use of time [23], we were able to consolidate many disparate initial thoughts to common themes within the two-hour timeframe. When properly employed, consensus agreement methods create structured environments for which experts are prompted to give the best available information, allowing solutions to problems that may remain otherwise unsolved [26]. This requires the process to be deliberately inclusive, participatory, collaborative, and cooperative, with an ultimate goal of a final consensus agreement [27]. A fundamental element of this methodology is that it does not require all participants to agree on all topics (it implies only general agreement) nor does it assure unanimity.

At the end of stage four, vNGT participants were allocated one week to modify their own definitions of contextual factors and then were given a 48-hour window to rank order the final definitions. Eventually, a sixth round was deemed necessary to further separate three competing definitions.During stage four, notable harmonizing occurred across each of the definitions, especially our first goal of obtaining an overall definition. A majority also agreed that contextual factors moderated or mediated clinical outcomes and compared to the initial set of definitions, most included qualifying statements with the definitions as well. The qualifying statements, such as patient and provider personal, historical, cultural, environmental, physical, and rhetorical dimensions around the therapeutic encounter and the patient-clinician interaction, are what separates our definition from that of the OMERACT group [21].

Conclusion

Our study, involving a panel of international experts, offered the opportunity to identify a definition of contextual factors, find their qualifiers and understand their impact on the therapeutic outcome. Our findings may help clinicians and researchers embrace the complexity that underlies the construct of contextual factors. We acknowledge different opinions can coexist; we present our definition as a starting point for future studies on the topic.