Skip to main content
×
Home

Comparative effectiveness research priorities: Identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making

  • Kalipso Chalkidou (a1), Danielle Whicher (a2), Weslie Kary (a3) and Sean Tunis (a2)
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.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Comparative effectiveness research priorities: Identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Comparative effectiveness research priorities: Identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Comparative effectiveness research priorities: Identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
References
Hide All
1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Effective health care. http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ (accessed July 3, 2008).
2. America's Health Insurance Plans Board of Directors. AHIP board of directors statement on setting a higher bar for quality and value through comparative effectiveness research. November 2007. http://www.ahip.org/content/default.aspx?bc=31|44|21474 (accessed July 3, 2008).
3. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 111th Congress, 1st Session. January 6, 2009. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf (accessed July 3, 2008). Washington, DC: US Senate.
4. Black N. A national strategy for research and development: Lessons from England. Ann Rev Public Health. 1997;18:484505.
5. Bravata DM, Gienger AL, McDonald KM, et al. Systematic review: The comparative Effectiveness of percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:703716.
6. Chilcott J, Brennan A, Booth A, et al. The role of modeling in prioritising and planning clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:235251.
7. Committee on the NIH Research Priority-Setting Process. Institute of Medicine. Scientific opportunities and public needs: Improving setting and public input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1998.
8. Congressional Budget Office. Research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments: Issues and options for an expanded Federal role. December 2007. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8891/12–18-ComparativeEffectiveness.pdf (accessed June 20, 2008).
9. Department of Health, United Kingdom. Standing group on health technology: Report. London: The Office of Information; 1994.
10. Donaldson MS, Sox HC. Setting priorities for health technology assessment: A model process. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1992.
11. Institute of Medicine. Compelling comparative effectiveness studies, priority assessment inventory project, February-September 2008. http://www.iom.edu/CMS/28312/RT-EBM/55069/60576/60595.aspx (accessed June 20, 2008).
12. Institute of Medicine. Knowing what works in healthcare: A roadmap for the nation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2008. www.iom.edu/CMS/3809/34261/50718.aspx (accessed June 20, 2008).
13. Kirschner N. Improving availability of comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness information: An essential feature for a high-quality and efficient United States health care system. A position paper of the American College of Physicians. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2008.
14. Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee. Medicare evidentiary priorities. August 2008. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/CoverageGenInfo/07_EvidentiaryPriorities.asp (accessed June 20, 2008).
15. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Producing comparative-effectiveness information. In: Report to the Congress. Promoting greater efficiency in Medicare. Washington, DC: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission; 2007. www.medpac.gov/chapters/Jun07_Ch02.pdf (accessed June 20, 2008).
16. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Profile 2008. Washington, DC: PhRMA; 2008. http://www.phrma.org/files/2008%20Profile.pdf (accessed October 10, 2008).
17. Rowe G, Wright G, Bolger F. Delphi: A reevaluation of research and theory. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1991;39:235251.
18. Sackett DL, Hoey J. Why randomized controlled trials fail but needn't: a new series is launched. CMAJ. 2000;162:13011302.
19. Schoen C, Guterman S, Shih A, et al. Bending the curve: Options for achieving savings and improving value in U.S. health spending. The Commonwealth Fund, December 2007. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Schoen_bendingthecurve_1080.pdf?section=4039 (accessed June 20, 2008).
20. United States Senate. Bill S.3408: Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of 2008 (Introduced to Senate). July 31, 2008. Washington, DC: US Senate.
21. Van de Ven AH, Delbecq AL. Nominal versus interacting group processes for committee decision-making effectiveness. Acad Manage J. 1971;14:203212.
22. Velasquez EJ, Lee KL, O'Conner CM, et al. . The rationale and design of the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;134:15401547.
23. Vella K, Goldfrad C, Rowan K, Bion J, Black N. Use of consensus development to establish national research priorities in critical care. BMJ. 2000;320:976980.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Chalkidou Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material 1.doc

 Word (36 KB)
36 KB
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Chalkidou Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material 2.doc

 Word (32 KB)
32 KB
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Chalkidou Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material 3.doc

 Word (37 KB)
37 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 11
Total number of PDF views: 51 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 160 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 25th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.