Table 2.

2018 OMERACT First-time participant Nominal Group Technique (n = 8) addressing the question “What improvements do you think can make the breakouts and voting process at OMERACT more productive?”

Comments	Summed Votes
1. Improve facilitation — better facilitators Specific SOP (standard operating procedures) for breakouts Specific direction and template for facilitators Discussion at breakout with background of the slide summary of date and propose intervention Clear presentation and data display Good facilitator with white board summarizing what people are saying Specific questions for facilitator or group Addressing questions from the group during the breakout Assuring all voices are heard If needed, may limit time for each participant comment Foster more discussion in breakouts	15
2. Time in general room after breakouts for comments from the team to be addressed by WG Time for synthesizing and discussing the feedback Build a break after the breakout before the general session to allow WG to review feedback from breakout	5
3. Tough structure for voting process Do not speak when voting starts Stick to the plan, respect the methodology	4
4. Everyone speaks in breakouts	4
5. Better preparation of all participants up front Materials came late One slide with estimated COS in prereading material Short video on newbie training day with each type of OMERACT interaction	3
6. Replace voting questions with discussion questions No voting in breakout sessions No voting in breakouts; only suggestions for the WG OK to vote on overall issues if time permits	3
7. Include 1 working group member in each breakout Include an individual with expertise in breakouts	3
8. Deep dive (more work) by OMERACT leadership in QOL and other similar domains is needed, so better domains are named General comment regarding domain overlap	3
9. Need for better definitions of the terminology used Group should provide definitions for conflicting terms (e.g., emotional well-being, QOL, social psychological, activities of daily living)	2
10. Generate 3–5 most concerns or questions back to general session for clarification Prioritization of top concerns Create 1 big template from all breakouts to present to general session Each breakout only presents divergent opinions	2
11. Reconsider adding a practice session before OMERACT Patient research partners had a Webinar	2
12. Consistency in conduct of processes	2
13. Smaller groups (6–9) if possible; some breakouts were too big
14. Better psychometric filter for instrument quality PsAID measurement property in the psoriatic arthritis workshop as an example
15. Overview slide on procedures at breakout – timelines, notes, etc.
16. Adequate time period for breakouts
17. Breakout session template summary Standard slides for breakout reports
18. Improved technical voting system Improved voting system
19. Better planning on room settings for breakouts Breakouts in big ballroom did not allow good interaction
20. Review voting questions before presentation
21. Alternative strategies for gaining feedback, e.g., written cards
22. Anonymized voting in breakout session

The last 9 responses did not receive any votes. Each participant had 6 votes, and participants gave 3 votes to the top priority, 2 to the next, and 1 to the next priority. OMERACT: Outcome Measures in Rheumatology; WG: working group; COS: core outcome set; QOL: quality of life; PsAID: Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease.