Comparative effectiveness research in Ontario, Canada

Producing relevant and timely information for health care decision makers

Danielle M. Whicher, Kalipso Chalkidou, Irfan A. Dhalla, Leslie Levin, Sean Tunis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Context: Comparative effectiveness research is increasingly being recognized as a method to link research with the information needs of decision makers. As the United States begins to invest in comparative effectiveness, it would be wise to look at other functioning research networks to understand the infrastructure and funding required to support them. Methods: This case study looks at the comparative effectiveness research network in Ontario, Canada, for which a neutral coordinating committee is responsible for prioritizing topics, assessing evidence, providing recommendations on coverage decisions, and determining pertinent research questions for further evaluation. This committee is supported by the Medical Advisory Secretariat and several large research institutions. This article analyzes the infrastructure and cost needed to support this network and offers recommendations for developing policies and methodologies to support comparative effectiveness research in the United States. Findings: The research network in place in Ontario explicitly links decision making with evidence generation, in a transparent, timely, and efficient way. Funding is provided by the Ontario government through a reliable and stable funding mechanism that helps ensure that the studies it supports are relevant to decision makers. Conclusions: With the recent allocation of funds to support comparative effectiveness research from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the United States should begin to construct an infrastructure that applies these features to make sure that evidence generated from this effort positively affects the quality of health care delivered to patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)585-606
Number of pages22
JournalMilbank Quarterly
Volume87
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Comparative Effectiveness Research
Ontario
Canada
Delivery of Health Care
Research
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Quality of Health Care
Financial Management
Decision Making
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Evidence-based medicine
  • Health care reform
  • Health policy
  • Health services research
  • Investigational therapies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Comparative effectiveness research in Ontario, Canada : Producing relevant and timely information for health care decision makers. / Whicher, Danielle M.; Chalkidou, Kalipso; Dhalla, Irfan A.; Levin, Leslie; Tunis, Sean.

In: Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 87, No. 3, 09.2009, p. 585-606.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Whicher, Danielle M. ; Chalkidou, Kalipso ; Dhalla, Irfan A. ; Levin, Leslie ; Tunis, Sean. / Comparative effectiveness research in Ontario, Canada : Producing relevant and timely information for health care decision makers. In: Milbank Quarterly. 2009 ; Vol. 87, No. 3. pp. 585-606.
@article{d94f6ac5ba6c49b7a7bb1de72f96ee3b,
title = "Comparative effectiveness research in Ontario, Canada: Producing relevant and timely information for health care decision makers",
abstract = "Context: Comparative effectiveness research is increasingly being recognized as a method to link research with the information needs of decision makers. As the United States begins to invest in comparative effectiveness, it would be wise to look at other functioning research networks to understand the infrastructure and funding required to support them. Methods: This case study looks at the comparative effectiveness research network in Ontario, Canada, for which a neutral coordinating committee is responsible for prioritizing topics, assessing evidence, providing recommendations on coverage decisions, and determining pertinent research questions for further evaluation. This committee is supported by the Medical Advisory Secretariat and several large research institutions. This article analyzes the infrastructure and cost needed to support this network and offers recommendations for developing policies and methodologies to support comparative effectiveness research in the United States. Findings: The research network in place in Ontario explicitly links decision making with evidence generation, in a transparent, timely, and efficient way. Funding is provided by the Ontario government through a reliable and stable funding mechanism that helps ensure that the studies it supports are relevant to decision makers. Conclusions: With the recent allocation of funds to support comparative effectiveness research from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the United States should begin to construct an infrastructure that applies these features to make sure that evidence generated from this effort positively affects the quality of health care delivered to patients.",
keywords = "Evidence-based medicine, Health care reform, Health policy, Health services research, Investigational therapies",
author = "Whicher, {Danielle M.} and Kalipso Chalkidou and Dhalla, {Irfan A.} and Leslie Levin and Sean Tunis",
year = "2009",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00572.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "87",
pages = "585--606",
journal = "Milbank Quarterly",
issn = "0887-378X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative effectiveness research in Ontario, Canada

T2 - Producing relevant and timely information for health care decision makers

AU - Whicher, Danielle M.

AU - Chalkidou, Kalipso

AU - Dhalla, Irfan A.

AU - Levin, Leslie

AU - Tunis, Sean

PY - 2009/9

Y1 - 2009/9

N2 - Context: Comparative effectiveness research is increasingly being recognized as a method to link research with the information needs of decision makers. As the United States begins to invest in comparative effectiveness, it would be wise to look at other functioning research networks to understand the infrastructure and funding required to support them. Methods: This case study looks at the comparative effectiveness research network in Ontario, Canada, for which a neutral coordinating committee is responsible for prioritizing topics, assessing evidence, providing recommendations on coverage decisions, and determining pertinent research questions for further evaluation. This committee is supported by the Medical Advisory Secretariat and several large research institutions. This article analyzes the infrastructure and cost needed to support this network and offers recommendations for developing policies and methodologies to support comparative effectiveness research in the United States. Findings: The research network in place in Ontario explicitly links decision making with evidence generation, in a transparent, timely, and efficient way. Funding is provided by the Ontario government through a reliable and stable funding mechanism that helps ensure that the studies it supports are relevant to decision makers. Conclusions: With the recent allocation of funds to support comparative effectiveness research from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the United States should begin to construct an infrastructure that applies these features to make sure that evidence generated from this effort positively affects the quality of health care delivered to patients.

AB - Context: Comparative effectiveness research is increasingly being recognized as a method to link research with the information needs of decision makers. As the United States begins to invest in comparative effectiveness, it would be wise to look at other functioning research networks to understand the infrastructure and funding required to support them. Methods: This case study looks at the comparative effectiveness research network in Ontario, Canada, for which a neutral coordinating committee is responsible for prioritizing topics, assessing evidence, providing recommendations on coverage decisions, and determining pertinent research questions for further evaluation. This committee is supported by the Medical Advisory Secretariat and several large research institutions. This article analyzes the infrastructure and cost needed to support this network and offers recommendations for developing policies and methodologies to support comparative effectiveness research in the United States. Findings: The research network in place in Ontario explicitly links decision making with evidence generation, in a transparent, timely, and efficient way. Funding is provided by the Ontario government through a reliable and stable funding mechanism that helps ensure that the studies it supports are relevant to decision makers. Conclusions: With the recent allocation of funds to support comparative effectiveness research from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the United States should begin to construct an infrastructure that applies these features to make sure that evidence generated from this effort positively affects the quality of health care delivered to patients.

KW - Evidence-based medicine

KW - Health care reform

KW - Health policy

KW - Health services research

KW - Investigational therapies

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=69949138043&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=69949138043&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00572.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00572.x

M3 - Article

VL - 87

SP - 585

EP - 606

JO - Milbank Quarterly

JF - Milbank Quarterly

SN - 0887-378X

IS - 3

ER -