Quantity and Quality of Economic Evaluations in U.S. Nursing Research, 1997-2015: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The United States has a complex healthcare system that is undergoing substantial reformations. There is a need for high-quality, economic evaluations of nursing practice. An updated review of completed economic evaluations relevant to the field of nursing within the U.S. healthcare system is timely and needed. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and describe the quantity and quality of economic evaluations in nursing-relevant research performed in the United States between 1997 and 2015. METHODS: Four databases were searched. Titles, abstracts, and full-text content were reviewed to identify studies that analyzed both costs and outcomes, relevant to nursing, performed in the United States, and used the quality-adjusted life year to measure effectiveness. For included studies, data were extracted from full-text articles using criteria from U.S. Public Health Service's Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Most (n = 25, 89%) were published in the last decade of the analysis, from 2006 to 2015. Assessment of quality, based on selected items from the panel guidelines, found that the evaluations did not consistently use the recommended societal perspective, use multiple resource utilization categories, use constant dollars, discount future costs and outcomes, use a lifetime horizon, or include an indication of uncertainty in results. The only resource utilization category consistently included across studies was healthcare resources. DISCUSSION: Only 28 nursing-related studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified as meeting robust health economic evaluation methodological criteria, and most did not include all important guideline items. Despite increases in absolute numbers of published studies over the past decade, economic evaluation has been underutilized in U.S. nursing-relevant research in the past two decades.

US Military Service Members' Reasons for Deciding to Participate in Health Research.

Researchers have reported challenges in recruiting US military service members as research participants. We explored their reasons for participating. Eighteen US military service members who had participated in at least one health-related research study within the previous 3 years completed semi-structured individual interviews in person or by telephone, focused on the service members' past decisions regarding research participation. Service members described participation decisions for 34 individual research experiences in 27 separate studies. Service members' reasons for participation in research clustered in three themes: others-, self-, and fit-focused. Each decision included reasons characterized by at least two themes. Reasons from all three themes were apparent in two-thirds of individual participation decisions. Reasons described by at least half of the service members included a desire to make things better for others, to improve an organization, to help researchers, and to improve one's health; understanding how they fit in studies; and convenience of participation. Findings may help researchers, study sponsors, ethicists, military leaders, and military decision-makers better understand service members' reasons for participating in research and improve future recruitment of service members in health research. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Cost effectiveness analysis for nursing research.

BACKGROUND: With ever-increasing pressure to reduce costs and increase quality, nurses are faced with the challenge of producing evidence that their interventions and care provide value. Cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a tool that can be used to provide this evidence by comparative evaluation of the costs and consequences of two or more alternatives. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article is to introduce the essential components of CEA to nurses and nurse researchers with the protocol of a recently funded cluster randomized controlled trial as an example. METHODS: This article provides (a) a description of the main concepts and key steps in CEA and (b) a summary of the background and objectives of a CEA designed to evaluate a nursing-led pain and symptom management intervention in rural communities compared with the current usual care. DISCUSSION: As the example highlights, incorporating CEA into nursing research studies is feasible. The burden of the additional data collection required is offset by quantitative evidence of the given intervention's cost and impact using humanistic and economic outcomes. At a time when U.S. healthcare is moving toward accountable care, the information provided by CEA will be an important additional component of the evidence produced by nursing research.

Indications of Recruitment Challenges in Research with U.S. Military Service Members: A ClinicalTrials.gov Review.

INTRODUCTION: The success of military-relevant health research often depends on recruiting adequate numbers of U.S. military service members as research participants. Researchers have reported difficulties in recruiting service member research participants. Reviews of ClinicalTrials.gov, an online clinical trial registry of publicly and privately sponsored studies, have identified challenges in participant recruitment and barriers to study completion in various research populations. The purpose of this study was to identify indications of difficulty recruiting U.S. military service members as research participants based on data from study records in ClinicalTrials.gov. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of studies starting between 2005 and 2014 were collected from ClinicalTrials.gov and updated through January 2016. Three hundred and two studies that included ≥25% U.S. military service member research participants were (1) compared to a comparison group of 302 studies, each with <5% service member participants and (2) compared by the proportion of service member participants within studies in the military group ("many" ≥25% but <100% service members and "all" 100% service members). Groups were evaluated and compared for recruitment status; reasons for study withdrawal, termination, or suspension; achievement of ≥85% of the anticipated enrollment; and differences in achieving recruitment goals according to study sponsor. RESULTS: Twelve percent of studies in the military group had been withdrawn, terminated, or suspended; enrollment and funding problems were the most common reasons. The comparison group had 11% of studies withdrawn, terminated, or suspended; the most common reasons were enrollment problems and sponsor decision. All study groups had indications of difficulty adequately achieving participant enrollment goals. Among studies with known anticipated and actual enrollment, approximately half in both the military group (47.9%) and comparison group (50.3%) achieved ≥85% of the anticipated enrollment (p = 0.722). Half of studies with many service members and 44% of studies with all service members achieved ≥85% of the anticipated enrollment (p = 0.600). In comparing the many and all service member subgroups, significant differences were found in the median values for anticipated enrollment and actual enrollment, even when accounting for Bonferroni correction. Evaluations of mean values did not show a statistical difference between the military subgroups. There were no significant differences according to study sponsor (military, academic, Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, nonprofit organization, or industry) for a study achieving or not achieving ≥85% of the anticipated enrollment. CONCLUSION: This review supports anecdotal reports of difficulty recruiting service members as research participants. However, the findings also indicate that in many regards, there is not much difference in the difficulties recruiting service members versus other research participants. Findings suggest that it is often difficult to recruit research participants regardless of the specific population or type of study sponsor, and that studies with either many or all service member participants have similar achievement of recruitment goals. Findings in this study may be useful for those who design research that includes service members or for those who are apprehensive about including service members in their research.

Trends in Research with U.S. Military Service Member Participants: A Population-Specific ClinicalTrials.gov Review.

BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov reviews have evaluated research trends for specific conditions and age groups but not for specific populations of research participants. No ClinicalTrials.gov reviews have evaluated research with military service member participants. PURPOSE: Study objectives were (a) to use ClinicalTrials.gov to identify trends in biomedical research from 2005 to 2014 in which U.S. military service members actively participated as research participants and (b) to describe a search strategy for adaptation in future ClinicalTrials.gov reviews of specific participant populations. METHODS: A systematic review of ClinicalTrials.gov was performed to identify studies that included U.S. service members as participants, either exclusively or with other groups of participants. RESULTS: U.S. service members were identified as participants in 512 studies. Service members participated together with other groups in 392 studies, while 120 studies included only service members. The top five conditions of interest were post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, amputations, burns, and ocular injuries/disorders. The number of studies started each year peaked in 2011 and declined from 2012 to 2014. Twenty-five percent of studies exclusive to service members aimed to enroll 500 or more participants. Research exclusive to Guard and Reserve service members during this period was limited. CONCLUSIONS: U.S. military service members participate in biomedical research. To address the health needs of U.S. service members, it is important to ensure there is not a prolonged decline in research among this population. The search strategy may be adapted to ClinicalTrials.gov reviews of specific participant populations for which straightforward searches are not possible.

Differences in level of care at the end of life according to race.

BACKGROUND: Tailoring care for patients and their families at the end of life is important. PURPOSE: To examine factors associated with patients' choices for level of care at the end of life. METHODS: Data on demographics and level of care (full code, do not resuscitate, or withdrawal of life support) were collected on 1072 patients who died between January 1998 and June 2006 on a cardiac care unit. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with level of care. RESULTS: Median (interquartile range) age of blacks was 64 (50-74) years and of whites was 70 (62-78) years. At the time of death, the level of care differed significantly between blacks and whites: 41.8% (n = 112) of blacks versus 26.7% (n = 194) of whites chose full code (P <.001), 37.3% (n = 96) of blacks versus 43.9% (n = 317) of whites chose do not resuscitate (P = .03), and 20.9% (n = 54) of blacks versus 29.3% (n = 210) of whites chose withdrawal of life support (P = .005). After age, sex, diagnosis, and lengths of stay in intensive care unit and hospital were controlled for, blacks were more likely than whites to choose full code status at the time of death (odds ratio 1.91 [95% confidence interval, 2.63-1.39], P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Blacks are 1.9 times as likely as others to choose full code at time of death. Cultural differences should be acknowledged when providing end-of-life care.