Physicians' perspectives regarding pragmatic clinical trials

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Volumn 5, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 499-506

  Topazian, Rachel ^a   Bollinger, Juli ^a   Weinfurt, Kevin P ^b,c   Dvoskin, Rachel ^a   Mathews, Debra ^a   Brelsford, Kathleen ^b   DeCamp, Matthew ^a,d   Sugarman, Jeremy ^a,d,e  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DUKE CLINICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

comparative effectiveness research; ethics; qualitative research

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; PATIENT RIGHT; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RESEARCH ETHICS; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; UNITED STATES; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; PHYSICIAN;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; HUMANS; PHYSICIANS; PRAGMATIC CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84979702662     PISSN: 20426305     EISSN: 20426313     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/cer-2016-0024     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory. www.nihcollaboratory.org/Pages/default.aspx
2. PCORnet: The National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. www.pcornet.org/
3. Califf RM, Sugarman J. Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin. Trials 12(5), 436-441 (2015).
4. Meeker D, Linder JA, Fox CR et al. Effect of behavioral interventions on inappropriate antibiotic prescribing among primary care practices: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 315(6), 562-570 (2016).
5. Jarvik JG, Comstock BA, James KT et al. Lumbar imaging with reporting of epidemiology (LIRE)-protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized trial. Contemp. Clin. Trials 45(Pt B), 157-163 (2015).
6. Huang SS, Septimus E, Kleinman K et al. Targeted versus universal decolonization to prevent ICU infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 368(24), 2255-2265 (2013).
7. Xian Y, Wu J, O'Brien EC, Fonarow GC, Olson DM, Schwamm LH. Real world effectiveness of warfarin among ischemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation: observational analysis from Patient-Centered Research into Outcomes Stroke Patients Prefer and Effectiveness Research (PROSPER) study. BMJ 351, h3786 (2015).
8. Cho MK, Magnus D, Constantine M et al. Attitudes towards risk and informed consent for research on medical practices: a cross-sectional survey. Ann. Intern. Med. 162(10), 690-696 (2015).
9. Weinfurt KP, Bollinger JM, Brelsford KM et al. Patients' views concerning research on medical practices: implications for consent. AJOB Empir. Bioeth. 7, 76-91 (2016).
10. Kass N, Faden R, Fabi R et al. Alternative consent models for comparative effectiveness studies: views of patients from two institutions. AJOB Empir. Bioeth. 7, 92-105 (2016).
11. Keyhani S, Woodward M, Federman AD. Physician views on the use of comparative effectiveness research: a national survey. Ann. Intern. Med. 153(8), 551-552 (2010).
12. Forsythe LP, Frank L, Walker KO et al. Patient and clinician views on comparative effectiveness research and engagement in research. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 4(1), 11-25 (2015).
13. Manning B, Bullard E. Measuring physicians' opinions of CER to strengthen its role in patient-centered care. Report to American College of Physicians. www.aafp.org
14. Shortell SM, Gillies RR, Anderson DA, Erickson KM, Mitchell JB. Remaking health care in America: building organized delivery systems. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, USA (1996).
15. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res. Nurs. Health 23, 334-340 (2000).
16. Crabtree BF, Miller WL. Doing Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA (1999).
17. Bradley EH, Curry LA, Devers KJ. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Services Res. 42(4), 1758-1772 (2007).
18. Namey EE, Guest GS, McKenna K, Chen M. Evaluating bang for the buck: a cost-effectiveness comparison between individual interviews and focus groups based on thematic saturation levels. Am. J. Eval. doi:10.1177/1098214016630406 (2016) (Epub ahead of print).
19. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ et al. Content validity - establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1 - eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health 14(8), 967-977 (2011).
20. McKinney RE, Beskow LM, Ford DE et al. Use of altered informed consent in pragmatic clinical research. Clin. Trials 12(5), 494-502 (2015).
21. Whicher DM, Miller JE, Dunham KM, Joffe S. Gatekeepers for pragmatic clinical trials. Clin. Trials 12(5), 442-448 (2015).