Emerging healthcare interventions: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's programmatic initiative.

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization established by the U.S. Congress to fund comparative clinical effectiveness research focusing on patient-centered outcomes through the engagement of stakeholders. Evaluation of emerging healthcare innovations is one of PCORI's five National Priorities for Health. One such initiative is PCORI's Emerging Technologies and Therapeutics Reports program, established to provide timely overviews of evidence on new drugs and other healthcare technologies. This article provides an overview of completed and ongoing Emerging Technologies and Therapeutics Reports including lessons learned to date. In addition to systematic searches, systematic selection of studies, and transparent reporting of the available evidence, informed by a select number of stakeholders (i.e., key informants), these reports focus on contextual factors shaping the diffusion of emerging technologies that are often not reported in the medical literature. This article also compares processes and methodologies of health technology assessments (HTAs) from a selected number of national and international publicly funded agencies with a goal toward potential future enhancement of PCORI's Emerging Technologies and Therapeutics Reports program. HTAs vary considerably in terms of funding, types of assessments, the role of manufacturers, stakeholder engagement, timeline to complete from the start to the finish of a draft report publication, and communication of uncertainty for informed decision making. Future Emerging Technologies and Therapeutics Reports may focus on rapid reports to support a more expedient development of evidence. Future research could explore the role of contextual factors identified in these reports on targeted evidence generation.

Building sustainable multi-functional prospective electronic clinical data systems.

A better alignment in the goals of the biomedical research enterprise and the health care delivery system can help fill the large gaps in our knowledge of the impact of clinical interventions on patient outcomes in the real world. There are several initiatives underway to align the research priorities of patients, providers, researchers, and policy makers. These include Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)-supported projects to build flexible prospective clinical electronic data infrastructure that meet the needs of these diverse users. AHRQ has previously supported the creation of 2 distributed research networks as a new approach to conduct comparative effectiveness research (CER) while protecting a patient's confidential information and the proprietary needs of a clinical organization. It has applied its experience in building these networks in directing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds for CER to support new clinical electronic infrastructure projects that can be used for several purposes including CER, quality improvement, clinical decision support, and disease surveillance. In addition, AHRQ has funded a new Electronic Data Methods forum to advance the methods in clinical informatics, research analytics, and governance by actively engaging investigators from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act-funded projects and external stakeholders.

Better information for better health care: the Evidence-based Practice Center program and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

To provide decision makers with the best available evidence, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality established a network of Evidence-based Practice Centers across North America. The centers perform systematic reviews on important questions posed by partner organizations about clinical, organizational, and policy interventions in healthcare. The Agency works closely with partners and other decision maker s to help translate that evidence into practice or policy. In this paper, we review important lessons we have learned over the past 7 years about how to increase the efficiency and impact of systematic reviews. Lessons concern selecting the right topics and scope, working effectively with partners, and balancing consistency and flexibility in methods. We examine continuing evolutions of the program and the impact of planned work on comparative effectiveness performed as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003.

Primary Care Research in the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's Portfolio.

In their article in this issue, Mazur and colleagues analyze the characteristics of early recipients of funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Mazur and colleagues note correctly that PCORI has a unique purpose and mission and suggest that it should therefore have a distinct portfolio of researchers and departments when compared with other funders such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Responding on behalf of PCORI, the authors of this Commentary agree with the characterization of PCORI's mission as distinct from that of NIH and others. They agree too that data found on PCORI's Web site demonstrate that PCORI's portfolio of researchers and departments is more diverse and more heavily populated with clinician researchers, as would be expected. The authors take issue with Mazur and colleagues' suggestion that because half of clinical visits occur within primary care settings, half of PCORI's funded research should be based in primary care departments. PCORI's portfolio reflects what patients and others tell PCORI are the critical questions. Many of these do, in fact, occur with more complex conditions in specialty care. The authors question whether the research of primary care departments is too narrowly focused and whether it sufficiently considers study of these complex conditions. Research on more complex conditions including heart failure, coronary artery disease, and multiple comorbid conditions could be highly valuable when approached from the primary care perspective, where many of the comparative effectiveness questions first arise.

An overview and discussion of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's decision aid portfolio.

Decision aids (DAs) help patients make informed healthcare decisions in a manner consistent with their values and preferences. Despite their promise, DAs developed with public research dollars are not being implemented and adopted in real-world patient care settings at a rate consistent with which they are being developed. To appraise the sum of the parts of the portfolio and create a strategic imperative surrounding future funding, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) tasked the Duke Evidence Synthesis Group with evaluating its DA portfolio. This paper describes PCORI's portfolio of DAs according to the Duke Evidence Synthesis Group's analysis in the context of PCORI's mission and the field of decision science. The results revealed a diversity within PCORI's portfolio of funded DA projects. Findings support the movement toward more rigorous DA development, assessment and maintenance. PCORI's funding priorities related to DAs are clarified and comparative questions of interest are posed.

Patterns of public participation.

Purpose - The paper summarizes data from 12 countries, chosen to exhibit wide variation, on the role and place of public participation in the setting of priorities. The purpose of this paper is to exhibit cross-national patterns in respect of public participation, linking those differences to institutional features of the countries concerned. Design/methodology/approach - The approach is an example of case-orientated qualitative assessment of participation practices. It derives its data from the presentation of country case studies by experts on each system. The country cases are located within the historical development of democracy in each country. Findings - Patterns of participation are widely variable. Participation that is effective through routinized institutional processes appears to be inversely related to contestatory participation that uses political mobilization to challenge the legitimacy of the priority setting process. No system has resolved the conceptual ambiguities that are implicit in the idea of public participation. Originality/value - The paper draws on a unique collection of country case studies in participatory practice in prioritization, supplementing existing published sources. In showing that contestatory participation plays an important role in a sub-set of these countries it makes an important contribution to the field because it broadens the debate about public participation in priority setting beyond the use of minipublics and the observation of public representatives on decision-making bodies.

Making policy when the evidence is in dispute.

Policymakers often struggle with medical issues that are the subject of fierce scientific debate. On closer examination, many of these debates are manifestations of conflicting perspectives and values as much as disagreements over the evidence. We summarize common factors underlying recent debates and outline a series of questions that can help disentangle questions of evidence from those of values. These questions focus on identifying the most important outcomes, evaluating the quality of evidence, and assessing the trade-offs involved. We then use four recent policy debates-involving prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, high-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer, antibiotic therapy for otitis media, and newborn hearing screening-to illustrate how this approach can help clarify areas of agreement and disagreement of the opposing sides.

Standardized reporting of clinical practice guidelines: a proposal from the Conference on Guideline Standardization.

Despite enormous energies invested in authoring clinical practice guidelines, the quality of individual guidelines varies considerably. The Conference on Guideline Standardization (COGS) was convened in April 2002 to define a standard for guideline reporting that would promote guideline quality and facilitate implementation. Twenty-three people with expertise and experience in guideline development, dissemination, and implementation participated. A list of candidate guideline components was assembled from the Institute of Medicine Provisional Instrument for Assessing Clinical Guidelines, the National Guideline Clearinghouse, the Guideline Elements Model, and other published guideline models. In a 2-stage modified Delphi process, panelists first rated their agreement with the statement that "[Item name] is a necessary component of practice guidelines" on a 9-point scale. An individualized report was prepared for each panelist; the report summarized the panelist's rating for each item and the median and dispersion of rankings of all the panelists. In a second round, panelists separately rated necessity for validity and necessity for practical application. Items achieving a median rank of 7 or higher on either scale, with low disagreement index, were retained as necessary guideline components. Representatives of 22 organizations active in guideline development reviewed the proposed items and commented favorably. Closely related items were consolidated into 18 topics to create the COGS checklist. This checklist provides a framework to support more comprehensive documentation of practice guidelines. Most organizations that are active in guideline development found the component items to be comprehensive and to fit within their existing development methods.

How the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is engaging patients and others in shaping its research agenda.

Clinical research has been driven traditionally by investigators, from generating research questions and outcomes through analysis and release of study results. Building on the work of others, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is tapping into its broad-based stakeholder community--especially patients, caregivers, and their clinicians--to generate topics for research, help the institute prioritize those topics, select topics for funding, and ensure patients' involvement in the design of research projects. This article describes PCORI's approach, which is emblematic of the organization's mandate under the Affordable Care Act to seek meaningful ways to integrate the patient's voice into the research process, and describes how it is being used in selection of research that PCORI will fund. We also describe challenges facing our approach, including a lack of common language and training on the part of patients and resistance on the part of researchers to questions that are not researcher generated. Faced with the reality that PCORI will not be able to fund all research questions posed to it, there will also be difficult decisions to make when selecting those that have the highest priority for funding.

Debunking myths of protocol registration.

Developing and registering protocols may seem like an added burden to systematic review investigators. This paper discusses benefits of protocol registration and debunks common misperceptions on the barriers of protocol registration. Protocol registration is easy to do, reduces duplication of effort and benefits the review team by preventing later confusion.