Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 642 |
Number of pages | 1 |
Journal | Medical Decision Making |
Volume | 29 |
Issue number | 6 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - 2009 |
Externally published | Yes |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Health Policy
Access to Document
Other files and links
Cite this
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS
In: Medical Decision Making, Vol. 29, No. 6, 2009, p. 642.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Editorial
T2 - CER essay introduction
AU - McDonald, Kathryn M.
N1 - Funding Information: 642 642 sagemeta-type Editorial cover-date November/December 2009 search-text 642 Editorial CER Essay Introduction SAGE Publications, Inc. 200910.1177/0272989X09351422 Kathryn M.McDonald MM D ecisions imply choices between options, lead- ing to a need for comparative information. Those decisions interesting enough to research tend not to be straightforward. This situation occurs fre- quently when the idiosyncrasies of the human body meet the creativity of medical science and the many new technologies developed annually. Patients often nd their medical choices daunting and expe- rience frustration when information is insuf cient or not tailored to their particular situation. The United States has committed to comparative effec- tiveness research (CER) investments that are expected to pay off in terms of increasing the knowl- edge base about relevant choices, including 100 real health care dilemmas recently prioritized by the Institute of Medicine (available at www.iom.edu/ cerpriorities). The paradigm, as well as the product, of compara- tive research puts decision makers in the driver seat, with an information highway worth the journey. Patients, clinicians, health care organizations, tech- nology inventors, governments, and insurers can travel on the same highway and make much more informed decisions based on their respective prefer- ences and needs. As a research and education community, the Society for Medical Decision Making’s decision choices tend toward the methodological—is one research technique more robust than another for a speci c CER question? But our community is also interested in thinking about how to increase the likelihood of realizing the potential bene ts of CER. These essays tackle both of these themes in an accessible manner. We hope that the set together fas- cinates you as much as it did us, as research practi- tioners of CER. All of us are also patients at one point or another. We hope you wear your patient hat in any discussion of CER and anticipate that these essays will enlighten those conversations. Adrian Levy, Brian Harrigan, Karissa Johnston, and Andrew Briggs ask the following: will CER meet the objectives purported of improving health care decision making, changing clinical practice, promot- ing increased value, and reducing disparities? David Howard explores cancer screening decision making in Europe and the United States to consider similar questions. Dan Jonas and Karen Crotty cover the timely and important topic of workforce training in CER, focus- ing mostly on systematic reviews and technology assessment approaches used within the US-based Evidence-based Practice Center program supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Michael Kattan writes a compelling piece about a decision aid that could help communicate patient- speci c harms and bene ts for medical decisions about diagnostic tests or treatment options. This approach gets to the heart of CER’s potential use in patient-physician communication. Anirban Basu extends this personalized medicine ambition for CER to the research enterprise and sug- gests that available data and new scienti c methods might be used to generate individual estimates for a given patient’s decision about medical options. It’s a tall order for science but one worth striving for. Basu argues that ‘‘i-CER’’ (individualized CER) could solve some of the US health reform policy dilemmas posed by Levy et al. and Howard. The nal winning essay in the set is by Nancy Neil and offers a succinct re ection on the interesting interplays between CER, decision analysis models, real-world needs, and the theme of transparency. It is a worthwhile conversation to start and refreshing to see it started with the goals for modeling a decision maker’s problem, instead of the types of modeling methods in the decision sciences tool box. We are incredibly fortunate to have received a number of interesting submissions and be able to share some of the best with Medical Decision Mak- ing readers. Congratulations to the nalists, and many thanks to all of those who offered their pieces to this contest.
PY - 2009
Y1 - 2009
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=72149119733&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=72149119733&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0272989X09351422
DO - 10.1177/0272989X09351422
M3 - Editorial
C2 - 19959809
AN - SCOPUS:72149119733
SN - 0272-989X
VL - 29
SP - 642
JO - Medical Decision Making
JF - Medical Decision Making
IS - 6
ER -