Patient-centered outcomes research in radiology: Trends in funding and methodology

Academic Radiology

Volumn 21, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 1156-1161

  Lee, Christoph I ^a,b,c   Jarvik, Jeffrey G ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c School of Medicine   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative effectiveness research; Patient centered outcomes research; Pragmatic trials

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FUNDING; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RESEARCH PRIORITY; STANDARD; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ECONOMICS; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROCEDURES; TRENDS; UNITED STATES;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT; PATIENT-CENTERED CARE; RADIOLOGY; RESEARCH DESIGN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84905440676     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: 18784046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.01.027     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Tunis S.R., Benner J., McClellan M. Comparative effectiveness research: policy context, methods development and research infrastructure. Stat Med 2010, 29:1963-1976.
2. Conway P.H., Clancy C. Comparative-effectiveness research-implications of the Federal Coordinating Council's report. N Engl J Med 2009, 361:328-330.
3. Mendelson D.N., Goodman C.S., Ahn R., et al. Outcomes and effectiveness research in the private sector. Health Aff (Millwood) 1998, 17:75-90.
4. Federal Coordinating Council for comparative effectiveness research: report to the President and the Congress 2009, Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
5. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research 2009, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
6. Public Law 111-148 124 Stat. 119 2010, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, The 111th U.S. Congress, Washington, DC.
7. Iglehart J.K. The political fight over comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010, 29:1757-1760.
8. Meisel Z.F., Carr B.G., Conway P.H. From comparative effectiveness research to patient-centered outcomes research: integrating emergency care goals, methods, and priorities. Ann Emerg Med 2012, 60:309-316.
9. Glasgow R.E., Vinson C., Chambers D., et al. National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: current and future directions. Am J Public Health 2012, 102:1274-1281.
10. Garber A.M. How the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute can best influence real-world health care decision making. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011, 30:2243-2251.
11. Use of Recovery Act and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Funds for comparative effectiveness research 2011, Government Accountability Office, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC.
12. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Mission and vision. Available at:. Accessed November 21 2013. http://www.pcori.org/about-us/mission-and-vision/.
13. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The PCORI methodology report. Available at:. Accessed November 21 2013. http://www.pcori.org/research-we-support/the-pcori-methodology-report/.
14. Pandharipande P.V., Gazelle G.S. Comparative effectiveness research: what it means for radiology. Radiology 2009, 253:600-605.
15. D'Arcy L.P., Rich E.C. From comparative effectiveness research to patient-centered outcomes research: policy history and future directions. Neurosurg Focus 2012, 33:E7.
16. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Measuring patient outcomes from high tech diagnostic imaging studies. Available at:. Accessed November 15 2013. http://www.pcori.org/pfaawards/measuring-patient-outcomes-from-high-tech-diagnostic-imaging-studies/.
17. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. PCORI Funding Announcements: Cycle II awardees. Available at:. Accessed November 15 2013. http://www.pcori.org/assets/PCORI-PFA-Cycle-II-Awardees-050613.pdf?2.
18. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. PCORI Funding Awards: Cycle III and inaugural improving methods for conducting PCOR. Available at:. Accessed November 15 2013. http://www.pcori.org/assets/2013/09/PCORI-Funding-Awards-Cycle-III-and-Inaugrual-Improving-Methods-for-Conducting-PCOR.pdf.
19. Selby J.V., Fleurence R., Lauer M., et al. Reviewing hypothetical migraine studies using funding criteria from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Health Aff (Millwood) 2012, 31:2193-2199.
20. Kelly A.M., Cronin P., Carlos R.C. Introduction to value-based insurance design. J Am Coll Radiol 2008, 5:1118-1124.
21. Rawson J.V. Comparative effectiveness research in radiology: patients, physicians and policy makers. Acad Radiol 2011, 18:1067-1071.
22. Carlos R.C., Buist D.S., Wernli K.J., et al. Patient-centered outcomes in imaging: quantifying value. J Am Coll Radiol 2012, 9:725-728.
23. Swan J.S., Miksad R.A. Measuring the quality-of-life effects of diagnostic and screening tests. J Am Coll Radiol 2009, 6:567-575.
24. Fennessy F.M., Kong C.Y., Tempany C.M., et al. Quality-of-life assessment of fibroid treatment options and outcomes. Radiology 2011, 259:785-792.
25. Gabriel S.E., Normand S.L. Getting the methods right-the foundation of patient-centered outcomes research. N Engl J Med 2012, 367:787-790.
26. Albright K., Gechter K., Kempe A. Importance of mixed methods in pragmatic trials and dissemination and implementation research. Acad Pediatr 2013, 13:400-407.
27. Norton W.E., McCannon C.J., Schall M.W., et al. A stakeholder-driven agenda for advancing the science and practice of scale-up and spread in health. Implement Sci 2012, 7:118.
28. Greene S.M., Reid R.J., Larson E.B. Implementing the learning health system: from concept to action. Ann Intern Med 2012, 157:207-210.
29. Holve E., Calonge N. Lessons from the Electronic Data Methods Forum: collaboration at the frontier of comparative effectiveness research, patient-centered outcomes research, and quality improvement. Medical Care 2013, 51:S1-S3.
30. Connor J.T., Elm J.J., Broglio K.R. Bayesian adaptive trials offer advantages in comparative effectiveness trials: an example in status epilepticus. J Clin Epidemiol 2013, 66:S130-S137.
31. Lingard L., Albert M., Levinson W. Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research. BMJ 2008, 337:a567.
32. Thorpe K.E., Zwarenstein M., Oxman A.D., et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62(5):464-475.
33. Foster N., Little P. Methodological issues in pragmatic trials of complex interventions in primary care. Br J Gen Pract 2012, 62:10-11.
34. Patsopoulos N.A. A pragmatic view on pragmatic trials. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 2011, 13(2):217-224.
35. Macpherson H. Pragmatic clinical trials. Complement Ther Med 2004, 12(2-3):136-140.
36. National Institutes of Health. NIH health care systems research collaboratory. Available at:. Accessed December 23, 2013. https://www.nihcollaboratory.org/Pages/default.aspx.