Prioritizing comparative effectiveness research for cancer diagnostics using a regional stakeholder approach

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 241-255

  Klein, Gregory ^a   Gold, Laura S ^b   Sullivan, Sean D ^a   Buist, Diana Sm ^a,b,c   Ramsey, Scott ^a,c   Kreizenbeck, Karma ^c   Snell, Kyle ^c   Loggers, Elizabeth Trice ^b,c   Gifford, Joseph ^d   Watkins, John B ^e   Kessler, Larry ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b CENTER FOR HEALTH STUDIES   (United States)

^c Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^d Regence BlueShield   (United States)

^e Premera Blue Cross   (United States)

Author keywords

breast cancer; cancer imaging; comparative effectiveness research; research prioritization; stakeholder involvement

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EVALUATION RESEARCH; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FOLLOW UP; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LUNG CANCER; LYMPHOMA; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH PRIORITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE, INTEGRATED; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH PLANNING; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; WASHINGTON;

EID: 84886943739     PISSN: 20426305     EISSN: 20426313     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/cer.12.16     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Minkler M, Wallerstein N. Community-based participatory research for health: from process to outcomes (2nd). Jossey-Bass, CA, USA (2008).
2. Gold R, Whitlock EP, Patnode CD, McGinnis PS, Buckley DI, Morris C. Prioritizing research needs based on a systematic evidence review: a pilot process for engaging stakeholders. Health Expect. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011. 00716.x. (2011) (Epub ahead of print).
3. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Carter SM et al. Patients' priorities for health research: focus group study of patients with chronic kidney disease. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 23(10), 3206-3214 (2008).
4. Tunis SR, Benner J, McClellan M. Comparative effectiveness research: policy context, methods development and research infrastructure. Stat. Med. 29(19), 1963-1976 (2010).
5. Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, Helfand M, Eder M, Floyd N. AHRQ Series Paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care program. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 63(5), 491-501 (2010).
6. Fisher ES, Bynum JP, Skinner JS. Slowing the growth of health care costs - lessons from regional variation. N. Engl. J. Med. 360(9), 849-852 (2009).
7. Philipson T, Seabury S, Lockwood L, Goldman D, Lakdawalla D. Geographic Variation in Health Care: The Role of Private Markets. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1, 325-355 (2010).
8. O'Haire C, McPheeters M, Nakamoto E et al. Methods for Engaging Stakeholders To Identify and Prioritize Future Research Needs. Methods Future Research Needs Report No. 4. (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center and the Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10057-I.). AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC044-EF (2011).
9. Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel TA, Gottlieb DJ, Lucas FL, Pinder EL. The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 1: the content, quality, and accessibility of care. Ann. Intern. Med. 138(4), 273-287 (2003).
10. Song Y, Skinner J, Bynum J, Sutherland J, Wennberg JE, Fisher ES. Regional variations in diagnostic practices. N. Engl. J. Med. 363(1), 45-53 (2010).
11. Welch HG, Sharp SM, Gottlieb DJ, Skinner JS, Wennberg JE. Geographic variation in diagnosis frequency and risk of death among Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA 305(11), 1113-1118 (2011).
12. Douglas PS, Taylor A, Bild D et al. Outcomes research in cardiovascular imaging: report of a workshop sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2(7), 897-907 (2009).
13. Pickard AS, Lee TA, Solem CT, Joo MJ, Schumock GT, Krishnan JA. Prioritizing comparative-effectiveness research topics via stakeholder involvement: an application in COPD. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 90(6), 888-892 (2011).
14. Balshem H, Curtis P, Joplin L, Justmann R, Rosenberg A. Stakeholder Involvement in Improving Comparative Effectiveness Reviews: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program (Prepared by the AHRQ Effective Health Care Program Product Development Work Group under Contract No. HHSA 290-2007-10057-I). AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC079-EF (2011).
15. Chalkidou K, Whicher D, Kary W, Tunis S. Comparative effectiveness research priorities: identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 25(3), 241-248 (2009).
16. Savy M, Edmond K, Fine PE et al. Landscape analysis of interactions between nutrition and vaccine responses in children. J. Nutr. 139(11), 2154S-2218S (2009).
17. Thariani R, Wong W, Carlson JJ et al. Prioritization in comparative effectiveness research: the CANCERGEN Experience. Med. Care doi:10.1097/ MLR.0b013e3182422a3b (2012) (Epub ahead of print).
18. Cornel MC, Van El CG, Dondorp WJ. The promises of genomic screening: building a governance infrastructure. Special issue: genetics and democracy. J. Community Genet. 3(2), 73-77 (2012).
19. Nachtnebel A, Geiger-Gritsch S, Hintringer K, Wild C. Scanning the horizon: development and implementation of an early awareness system for anticancer drugs in Austria. Health Policy 104(1), 1-11 (2012).
20. Sutherland WJ, Aveling R, Bennun L et al. A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2012. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27(1), 12-18 (2012).
21. Drummond M, Sorenson C. Nasty or nice- A perspective on the use of health technology assessment in the United Kingdom. Value Health 12(Suppl. 2), S8-S13 (2009).
22. Lavertu S, Walters DE, Weimer DL. Scientific Expertise and the Balance of Political Interests: MEDCAC and Medicare Coverage Decisions. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 22(1), 55-81 (2012).
23. Houssami N, Hayes DF. Review of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer: should MRI be performed on all women with newly diagnosed, early stage breast cancer- CA Cancer J. Clin. 59(5), 290-302 (2009).
24. Gliklich Re LM, Velentgas P, Campion DM et al. Identification of future research needs in the comparative management of uterine fibroid disease. A Report on the Priority- Setting Process, Preliminary Data Analysis, and Research Plan. Effective Healthcare Research Report No. 31 (2011).
25. Myers ESG, Ravi D, Matchar D et al. Evaluating the potential use of modeling and value-of-information analysis for future research prioritization within the evidence-based practice cnter program. Duke Evidence-based Practice Center. AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC030-EF (2011).
26. Wallace PJ. Reshaping cancer learning through the use of health information technology. Health Aff. (Millwood) 26(2), w169-w177 (2007).
27. Behrman RE, Benner JS, Brown JS, McClellan M, Woodcock J, Platt R: Developing the Sentinel System - a national resource for evidence development. N. Engl. J. Med. 364(6), 498-499 (2011).
28. Zeliadt SB, Etzioni R, Ramsey SD, Penson DF, Potosky AL. Trends in treatment costs for localized prostate cancer: the healthy screenee effect. Med. Care 45(2), 154-159 (2007).