Comparative effectiveness research priorities

Identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making

Kalipso Chalkidou, Danielle Whicher, Weslie Kary, Sean Tunis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: In the debate on improving the quality and efficiency of the United States healthcare system, comparative effectiveness research is increasingly seen as a tool for reducing costs without compromising outcomes. Furthermore, the recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act explicitly describes a prioritization function for establishing a comparative effectiveness research agenda. However, how such a function, in terms of methods and process, would go about identifying the most important priorities warranting further research has received little attention. Objectives: This study describes an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded pilot project to translate one current comparative effectiveness review into a prioritized list of evidence gaps and research questions reflecting the views of the healthcare decision makers involved in the pilot. Methods: To create a prioritized research agenda, we developed an interactive nominal group process that relied on a multistakeholder workgroup scoring a list of research questions on the management of coronary artery disease. Results: According to the group, the areas of greatest uncertainty regarding the management of coronary artery disease are the comparative effectiveness of medical therapy versus percutaneous coronary interventions versus coronary artery bypass grafting for different patient subgroups; the impact of diagnostic testing; and the most effective method of developing performance measures for providers. Conclusions: By applying our nominal group process, we were able to create a list of research priorities for healthcare decision makers. Future research should focus on refining this process because determining research priorities is essential to the success of developing an infrastructure for comparative effectiveness research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)241-248
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
Volume25
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Comparative Effectiveness Research
Policy Making
Health Policy
Decision Making
Research
Group Processes
Delivery of Health Care
Coronary Artery Disease
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Health Services Research
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Coronary Artery Bypass
Uncertainty
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Coronary artery disease
  • Health services research
  • Healthcare reform
  • Investigational therapies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

Comparative effectiveness research priorities : Identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making. / Chalkidou, Kalipso; Whicher, Danielle; Kary, Weslie; Tunis, Sean.

In: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 25, No. 3, 07.2009, p. 241-248.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{cd7579732b1f4b169736221f338b4eb6,
title = "Comparative effectiveness research priorities: Identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making",
abstract = "Background: In the debate on improving the quality and efficiency of the United States healthcare system, comparative effectiveness research is increasingly seen as a tool for reducing costs without compromising outcomes. Furthermore, the recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act explicitly describes a prioritization function for establishing a comparative effectiveness research agenda. However, how such a function, in terms of methods and process, would go about identifying the most important priorities warranting further research has received little attention. Objectives: This study describes an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded pilot project to translate one current comparative effectiveness review into a prioritized list of evidence gaps and research questions reflecting the views of the healthcare decision makers involved in the pilot. Methods: To create a prioritized research agenda, we developed an interactive nominal group process that relied on a multistakeholder workgroup scoring a list of research questions on the management of coronary artery disease. Results: According to the group, the areas of greatest uncertainty regarding the management of coronary artery disease are the comparative effectiveness of medical therapy versus percutaneous coronary interventions versus coronary artery bypass grafting for different patient subgroups; the impact of diagnostic testing; and the most effective method of developing performance measures for providers. Conclusions: By applying our nominal group process, we were able to create a list of research priorities for healthcare decision makers. Future research should focus on refining this process because determining research priorities is essential to the success of developing an infrastructure for comparative effectiveness research.",
keywords = "Coronary artery disease, Health services research, Healthcare reform, Investigational therapies",
author = "Kalipso Chalkidou and Danielle Whicher and Weslie Kary and Sean Tunis",
year = "2009",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1017/S0266462309990225",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "241--248",
journal = "International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care",
issn = "0266-4623",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative effectiveness research priorities

T2 - Identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making

AU - Chalkidou, Kalipso

AU - Whicher, Danielle

AU - Kary, Weslie

AU - Tunis, Sean

PY - 2009/7

Y1 - 2009/7

N2 - Background: In the debate on improving the quality and efficiency of the United States healthcare system, comparative effectiveness research is increasingly seen as a tool for reducing costs without compromising outcomes. Furthermore, the recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act explicitly describes a prioritization function for establishing a comparative effectiveness research agenda. However, how such a function, in terms of methods and process, would go about identifying the most important priorities warranting further research has received little attention. Objectives: This study describes an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded pilot project to translate one current comparative effectiveness review into a prioritized list of evidence gaps and research questions reflecting the views of the healthcare decision makers involved in the pilot. Methods: To create a prioritized research agenda, we developed an interactive nominal group process that relied on a multistakeholder workgroup scoring a list of research questions on the management of coronary artery disease. Results: According to the group, the areas of greatest uncertainty regarding the management of coronary artery disease are the comparative effectiveness of medical therapy versus percutaneous coronary interventions versus coronary artery bypass grafting for different patient subgroups; the impact of diagnostic testing; and the most effective method of developing performance measures for providers. Conclusions: By applying our nominal group process, we were able to create a list of research priorities for healthcare decision makers. Future research should focus on refining this process because determining research priorities is essential to the success of developing an infrastructure for comparative effectiveness research.

AB - Background: In the debate on improving the quality and efficiency of the United States healthcare system, comparative effectiveness research is increasingly seen as a tool for reducing costs without compromising outcomes. Furthermore, the recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act explicitly describes a prioritization function for establishing a comparative effectiveness research agenda. However, how such a function, in terms of methods and process, would go about identifying the most important priorities warranting further research has received little attention. Objectives: This study describes an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded pilot project to translate one current comparative effectiveness review into a prioritized list of evidence gaps and research questions reflecting the views of the healthcare decision makers involved in the pilot. Methods: To create a prioritized research agenda, we developed an interactive nominal group process that relied on a multistakeholder workgroup scoring a list of research questions on the management of coronary artery disease. Results: According to the group, the areas of greatest uncertainty regarding the management of coronary artery disease are the comparative effectiveness of medical therapy versus percutaneous coronary interventions versus coronary artery bypass grafting for different patient subgroups; the impact of diagnostic testing; and the most effective method of developing performance measures for providers. Conclusions: By applying our nominal group process, we were able to create a list of research priorities for healthcare decision makers. Future research should focus on refining this process because determining research priorities is essential to the success of developing an infrastructure for comparative effectiveness research.

KW - Coronary artery disease

KW - Health services research

KW - Healthcare reform

KW - Investigational therapies

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70350464620&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70350464620&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S0266462309990225

DO - 10.1017/S0266462309990225

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 241

EP - 248

JO - International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

JF - International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

SN - 0266-4623

IS - 3

ER -