Stakeholder Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease A Workshop Report

被引:32
作者
Krishnan, Jerry A. [1 ]
Lindenauer, Peter K. [2 ,3 ]
Au, David H. [4 ,5 ]
Carson, Shannon S. [6 ]
Lee, Todd A. [1 ]
McBurnie, Mary Ann [7 ]
Naureckas, Edward T. [8 ]
Vollmer, William M. [7 ]
Mularski, Richard A. [7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Illinois, Chicago, IL 60612 USA
[2] Baystate Med Ctr, Ctr Qual Care Res, Springfield, MA USA
[3] Tufts Univ, Sch Med, Boston, MA 02111 USA
[4] VA Puget Sound Hlth Care Syst, Seattle, WA USA
[5] Univ Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[6] Univ N Carolina, Div Pulm & Crit Care Med, Chapel Hill, NC USA
[7] Kaiser Permanente Ctr Hlth Res, Ctr Hlth Res, Portland, OR USA
[8] Univ Illinois, Sect Pulm & Crit Care, Chicago, IL 60612 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院; 美国医疗保健研究与质量局;
关键词
health services research; research priorities; care coordination; stakeholders;
D O I
10.1164/rccm.201206-0994WS
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to address the expressed needs of patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders. Representatives of 54 stakeholder groups with an interest in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) participated in workshops convened by the COPD Outcomes-based Network for Clinical Effectiveness and Research Translation (CONCERT) over a 2-year period. Year 1 focused on chronic care and care coordination. Year 2 focused on acute care and transitions in care between healthcare settings. Discussions and provisional voting were conducted via teleconferences and e-mail exchanges before the workshop. Final prioritization votes occurred after in-person discussions at the workshop. We used a modified Delphi approach to facilitate discussions and consensus building. To more easily quantify preferences and to evaluate the internal consistency of rankings, the Analytic Hierarchy Process was incorporated in Year 2. Results of preworkshop and final workshop voting often differed, suggesting that prioritization efforts relying solely on requests for topics from stakeholder groups without in-person discussion may provide different research priorities. Research priorities varied across stakeholder groups, but generally focused on studies to evaluate different approaches to healthcare delivery (e.g., spirometry for diagnosis and treatment, integrated healthcare strategies during transitions in care) rather than head-to-head comparisons of medications. This research agenda may help to inform groups intending to respond to CER funding opportunities in COPD. The methodologies used, detailed in the online supplement, may also help to inform prioritization efforts for CER in other health conditions.
引用
收藏
页码:320 / 326
页数:7
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2008, GLOB STRAT DIAGN MAN
[2]  
[Anonymous], REP PRES C COMP EFF
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2009, IN NAT PRIOR COMP EF, DOI DOI 10.17226/12648
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1998, Health Technol Assess
[5]  
[Anonymous], ACCP CONS STAT DEV G
[6]  
[Anonymous], MORB MORT 2012 CHART
[7]   Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: The Intersection of Science and Health Care [J].
Clancy, Carolyn ;
Collins, Francis S. .
SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, 2010, 2 (37)
[8]   Setting Priorities For Comparative Effectiveness Research: From Assessing Public Health Benefits To Being Open With The Public [J].
Dubois, Robert W. ;
Graff, Jennifer S. .
HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2011, 30 (12) :2235-2242
[9]   Comparative Effectiveness Research in Lung Diseases and Sleep Disorders Recommendations from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Workshop [J].
Lieu, Tracy A. ;
Au, David ;
Krishnan, Jerry A. ;
Moss, Marc ;
Selker, Harry ;
Harabin, Andrea ;
Taggart, Virginia ;
Connors, Alfred .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2011, 184 (07) :848-856
[10]   Global burden of COPD: risk factors, prevalence, and future trends [J].
Mannino, David M. ;
Buist, A. Sonia .
LANCET, 2007, 370 (9589) :765-773