Using patient-reported outcomes and PROMIS in research and clinical applications: experiences from the PCORI pilot projects.

PURPOSE: The field of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) continues to develop. Patient-reported outcomes and, in particular the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) contribute complementary data to clinician-derived outcomes traditionally used in health decision-making. However, there has been little work to understand how PROMIS measures may inform or be integrated into PCOR or clinical applications. METHODS: Lead investigators from four pilot projects funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) collaborated to discuss lessons learned about the use of PROMIS in PCOR studies via virtual and in-person meetings. In addition, a qualitative data collection tool was used to assess the pilot projects' experiences. RESULTS: Lessons learned from the pilot projects centered on practical elements of research design, such as choosing the right outcomes to study, considering the advantages and limitations of the PROMIS short forms and computer adaptive technology versions, planning ahead for a feasible data collection process, maintaining the focus on patients by ensuring that the research is truly patient-centered, and helping patients and providers make the most of PROMIS in care. CONCLUSION: The PCORI pilot projects demonstrated that PROMIS can be successfully used to conduct research that will help patients make decisions about their care. Interest in PCOR continues to grow and the lessons learned from these projects about the use of PROMIS will be helpful to investigators. Given the numerous benefits of PROMIS, implementing this tool in research and care will hopefully lead to significant progress in measuring health outcomes that are meaningful and relevant to all stakeholders.

Which U.S. medical graduates plan to become specialty-board certified? Analysis of the 1997-2004 national association of American Medical Colleges Graduation Questionnaire database.

BACKGROUND: Predictors of U.S. allopathic medical-school graduates' board-certification plans have not been characterized. METHOD: Using multivariable logistic regression, graduates' responses to 11 questions on the 1997-2004 Association of American Medical Colleges Graduation Questionnaire were analyzed to identify independent predictors of plans for specialty-board certification. RESULTS: The proportion of 108,408 graduates planning specialty-board certification decreased from 97.3% in 1997 to 88.4% in 2004. Among 101,805 (93.9%) graduates with complete data, graduates who were Hispanic, rated their clinical clerkships, quality of medical education, and confidence in clinical skills more highly, had any debt, and planned "University-faculty" careers were more likely to plan becoming board certified. Females, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and graduates who planned to practice in underserved areas, planned "other" nonclinical-practice careers, and graduated with MD/other (non-PhD) degrees were less likely to plan becoming board certified. CONCLUSION: Specialty-board certification does not appear to be among the professional goals for a growing proportion of U.S. medical graduates.

Developing evidence that is fit for purpose: a framework for payer and research dialogue.

OBJECTIVES: Matching the supply and demand of evidence requires an understanding of when more evidence is needed, as well as the type of evidence that will meet this need. This article describes efforts to develop and refine a decision-making framework that considers payers' perspectives on the utility of evidence generated by different types of research methods, including real-world evidence. STUDY DESIGN: Conceptual framework development with subsequent testing during a roundtable dialogue. METHODS: The framework development process included a literature scan to identify existing frameworks and relevant articles on payer decision making. The framework was refined during a stand-alone roundtable in December 2013 hosted by the research team, which included representatives from public and private payers, pharmacy benefit management, the life sciences industry, and researchers. The roundtable discussion also included an application of the framework to 3 case studies. RESULTS: Application of the framework to the clinical scenarios and the resulting discussion provided key insights into when new evidence is needed to inform payer decision making and what questions should be addressed. Payers are not necessarily seeking more evidence about treatment efficacy; rather, they are seeking more evidence for relevant end points that illustrate the differences between treatment alternatives that can justify the resources required to change practice. In addition, payers are interested in obtaining new evidence that goes beyond efficacy, with an emphasis on effectiveness, longer-term safety, and delivery system impact. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that our decision-making framework is a useful tool to increase dialogue between evidence generators and payers, while also allowing for greater efficiency in the research process.