Comparative effectiveness research: Policy context, methods development and research infrastructure

被引:110
作者
Tunis, Sean R. [1 ]
Benner, Joshua [2 ]
McClellan, Mark [2 ]
机构
[1] World Trade Ctr Baltimore, Ctr Med Technol Policy, Baltimore, MD 21201 USA
[2] Brookings Inst, Engelberg Ctr Hlth Care Reform, Washington, DC 20036 USA
关键词
clinical research; research methods; research infrastructure; CLINICAL-TRIALS; DECISION; DESIGN; PERFORMANCE; DATABASE; CANCER;
D O I
10.1002/sim.3818
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has received substantial attention as a potential approach for improving health outcomes while lowering costs of care, and for improving the relevance and quality of clinical and health services research. The Institute of Medicine defines CER as 'the conduct and synthesis of systematic research comparing different interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor health conditions. The purpose of this research is to inform patients, providers, and decision-makers, responding to their expressed needs, about which interventions are most effective for which patients under specific circumstances.' Improving the methods and infrastructure for CER will require sustained attention to the following issues: (1) Meaningful involvement of patients, consumers, clinicians, payers, and policymakers in key phases of CER study design and implementation; (2) Development of methodological 'best practices' for the design of CER studies that reflect decision-maker needs and balance internal validity with relevance, feasibility and timeliness; and (3) Improvements in research infrastructure to enhance the validity and efficiency with which CER studies are implemented. The approach to addressing each of these issues should be informed by the understanding that the primary purpose of CER is to help health care decision makers make informed clinical and health policy decisions. Copyright (C) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:1963 / 1976
页数:14
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]  
*ACADEMYHLTH PLAC, 2005, 9 ACADEMYHLTH PLACE
[2]  
[Anonymous], TECHN CHANG GROWTH H
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2022, PRESCR DRUGS SPEND U
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2007, LEARN HEALTHC SYST W
[5]   Creating and synthesizing evidence with decision makers in mind - Integrating evidence from clinical trials and other study designs [J].
Atkins, David .
MEDICAL CARE, 2007, 45 (10) :S16-S22
[6]   Evaluating the validity of an instrumental variable study of neuroleptics - Can between-physician differences in prescribing patterns be used to estimate treatment effects? [J].
Brookhart, M. Alan ;
Rassen, Jeremy A. ;
Wang, Philip S. ;
Dormuth, Colin ;
Mogun, Helen ;
Schneeweiss, Sebastian .
MEDICAL CARE, 2007, 45 (10) :S116-S122
[7]   Issues facing clinical trials of the future [J].
Califf, RM .
JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2003, 254 (05) :426-433
[8]  
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2008, DEC MEM COMP TOM ANG
[9]   Are delayed-start design trials to show neuroprotection in Parkinson's disease fundamentally flawed? [J].
Clarke, Carl E. .
MOVEMENT DISORDERS, 2008, 23 (06) :784-789
[10]   Drug therapy: Aspirin, heparin, and fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction [J].
Collins, R ;
Peto, R ;
Baigent, C ;
Sleight, P .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1997, 336 (12) :847-860