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.

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.

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.

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.

AHRQ series paper 1: comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program.

In 2005, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality established the Effective Health Care (EHC) Program. The EHC Program aims to provide understandable and actionable information for patients, clinicians, and policy makers. The Evidence-based Practice Centers are one of the cornerstones of the EHC Program. Three key elements guide the EHC Program and thus, the conduct of Comparative Effectiveness Reviews by the EPC Program. Comparative Effectiveness Reviews introduce several specific challenges in addition to the familiar issues raised in a systematic review or meta-analysis of a single intervention. The articles in this series together form the current Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews of the EHC Program.

Funding opportunities in knowledge translation: review of the AHRQ's "Translating Research into Practice" initiatives, competing funding agencies, and strategies for success.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality actively funds and conducts research to improve health care for all Americans. This article is intended to provide a brief overview of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality activities in knowledge translation and to accompany the presentation given on May 15, 2007, to the Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, "Knowledge Translation in Emergency Medicine: Establishing a Research Agenda and Guide Map for Evidence Uptake."

Translating research into practice: the future ahead.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize and analyze the focus and methodologies of the Translating Research into Practice (TRIP) projects funded in 1999-2000 by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). DATA SOURCES AND STUDY DESIGN: An analysis of the successful applications for the TRIP I and II requests for applications in 1999 and 2000 was produced from the data collected. DATA COLLECTION: The following items were abstracted from each of the successful applications: provider focus, patient population, vulnerable populations, methodologies, interventions for change, outcomes measured, and conceptual framework used. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: AHRQ funded 27 TRIP grants in 1999 and 2000. A wide variety of health care providers, settings, and patients were the target of the grants. The most common study design was a randomized controlled trial. The most common TRIP interventions were educational and the most common frameworks were either adult learning theory or organizational theory. More than half of the projects planned to use information technology and half the projects had a focus on reducing errors. CONCLUSIONS: The TRIP projects encompass a broad range of providers, environments, patients, and interventions. The field of applied research and quality improvements should be considerably enhanced by these research projects.