Role of practice-based research networks in comparative effectiveness research.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hartung DM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3478766 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Role of practice-based research networks in comparative effectiveness research.
Hartung Daniel M DM Guise Jeanne-Marie JM Fagnan Lyle J LJ Davis Melinda M MM Stange Kurt C KC
Journal of comparative effectiveness research 20120101 1
Comparative effectiveness research fundamentally reorients how clinical evidence is generated and used with the goal of providing actionable information to decision-makers. To achieve this, it is vital that decision-makers and the research enterprise are engaged from research inception, to evidence generation and translation. Practice-based research networks are affiliated clinicians in diverse communities with the goal of conducting research to improve care. Practice-based research networks hav ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Electronic health information routinely collected during health care delivery and reimbursement can help address the need for evidence about the real-world effectiveness, safety, and quality of medical care. Often, distributed networks that combine information from multiple sources are needed to generate this real-world evidence.We provide a set of field-tested best practices and a set of recommendations for data quality checking for comparative effectiveness research (CER) in distributed data networks.Explore the requirements for data quality checking and describe data quality approaches undertaken by several existing multi-site networks.There are no established standards regarding how to evaluate the quality of electronic health data for CER within distributed networks. Data checks of increasing complexity are often used, ranging from consistency with syntactic rules to evaluation of semantics and consistency within and across sites. Temporal trends within and across sites are widely used, as are checks of each data refresh or update. Rates of specific events and exposures by age group, sex, and month are also common.Secondary use of electronic health data for CER holds promise but is complex, especially in distributed data networks that incorporate periodic data refreshes. The viability of a learning health system is dependent on a robust understanding of the quality, validity, and optimal secondary uses of routinely collected electronic health data within distributed health data networks. Robust data quality checking can strengthen confidence in findings based on distributed data network.
| S-EPMC4306391 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We compared the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of population-based recall (Pop-recall) versus practice-based recall (PCP-recall) at increasing immunizations among preschool children.This cluster-randomized trial involved children aged 19 to 35 months needing immunizations in 8 rural and 6 urban Colorado counties. In Pop-recall counties, recall was conducted centrally using the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS). In PCP-recall counties, practices were invited to attend webinar training using CIIS and offered financial support for mailings. The percentage of up-to-date (UTD) and vaccine documentation were compared 6 months after recall. A mixed-effects model assessed the association between intervention and whether a child became UTD.Ten of 195 practices (5%) implemented recall in PCP-recall counties. Among children needing immunizations, 18.7% became UTD in Pop-recall versus 12.8% in PCP-recall counties (P < .001); 31.8% had documented receipt of 1 or more vaccines in Pop-recall versus 22.6% in PCP-recall counties (P < .001). Relative risk estimates from multivariable modeling were 1.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10, 1.37) for becoming UTD and 1.26 (95% CI = 1.15, 1.38) for receipt of any vaccine. Costs for Pop-recall versus PCP-recall were $215 versus $1981 per practice and $17 versus $62 per child brought UTD.Population-based recall conducted centrally was more effective and cost-effective at increasing immunization rates in preschool children.
| S-EPMC3619016 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundObesity and its cardiovascular complications are extremely common medical problems, but evidence on how to accomplish weight loss in clinical practice is sparse.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, controlled trial to examine the effects of two behavioral weight-loss interventions in 415 obese patients with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. Participants were recruited from six primary care practices; 63.6% were women, 41.0% were black, and the mean age was 54.0 years. One intervention provided patients with weight-loss support remotely--through the telephone, a study-specific Web site, and e-mail. The other intervention provided in-person support during group and individual sessions, along with the three remote means of support. There was also a control group in which weight loss was self-directed. Outcomes were compared between each intervention group and the control group and between the two intervention groups. For both interventions, primary care providers reinforced participation at routinely scheduled visits. The trial duration was 24 months.ResultsAt baseline, the mean body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) for all participants was 36.6, and the mean weight was 103.8 kg. At 24 months, the mean change in weight from baseline was -0.8 kg in the control group, -4.6 kg in the group receiving remote support only (P<0.001 for the comparison with the control group), and -5.1 kg in the group receiving in-person support (P<0.001 for the comparison with the control group). The percentage of participants who lost 5% or more of their initial weight was 18.8% in the control group, 38.2% in the group receiving remote support only, and 41.4% in the group receiving in-person support. The change in weight from baseline did not differ significantly between the two intervention groups.ConclusionsIn two behavioral interventions, one delivered with in-person support and the other delivered remotely, without face-to-face contact between participants and weight-loss coaches, obese patients achieved and sustained clinically significant weight loss over a period of 24 months. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00783315.).
| S-EPMC4074540 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Integrative medicine (IM) provides patient-centered care and addresses the full range of physical, emotional, mental, social, spiritual, and environmental influences that affect a person's health. IM is a "whole systems" approach that employs multiple modalities as opposed to an isolated complementary therapy. Thus, studying outcomes of IM is more challenging than evaluating an isolated intervention. Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) allow for clinicians/investigators at multiple diverse sites using common methodology to pool their data, increase participant sample size and increase generalizability of results. To conduct real-world, practice-based research, the Bravewell Collaborative founded BraveNet in 2007 as the first national integrative medicine PBRN.Patients Receiving Integrative Medicine Effectiveness Registry (PRIMIER) is a prospective, non-randomized, observational evaluation conducted at fourteen clinical sites. Participants receive a non-standardized, personalized, multimodal IM approach for various medical conditions. Using the REDCap electronic platform, an anticipated 10,000 study participants will complete patient-reported outcome measures including Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-29, Perceived Stress Scale-4, and the Patient Activation Measure at baseline, 2, 4, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Extractions from participants' electronic health records include IM services received, as well as ICD diagnostic codes, and CPT billing codes associated with each IM visit. Repeated-measures analyses will be performed on data to assess change from baseline through 24 months with planned subgroup analyses to include specific clinical population and specific IM intervention or combinations.As the PRIMIER registry grows, we anticipate that our results would provide an indication of the promise of PBRN research efforts in IM. Analyses will incorporate a large sample of participants and an expected 10-year observation period and will provide the ability to evaluate the effect of IM on outcomes for specific clinical populations and specific IM interventions or combinations. As such, PRIMIER will serve as a national platform for future evaluations of IM best practices.Clinical Trials.gov NCT01754038.
| S-EPMC4743108 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This column describes a process for adapting an evidence-based practice in community clinics in which researchers and community providers participated and the resulting framework for implementation of the practice-Replicating Effective Programs-Facilitation. A two-day meeting for the Recovery-Oriented Collaborative Care study was conducted to elicit input from more than 50 stakeholders, including community providers, health care administrators, and implementation researchers. The process illustrates an effective researcher-community partnership in which stakeholders worked together not only to adapt the evidence-based practice to the needs of the clinical settings but also to develop the implementation strategy.
| S-EPMC5721667 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To demonstrate how falsification tests can be used to evaluate instrumental variables methods applicable to a wide variety of comparative effectiveness research questions.Brief conceptual review of instrumental variables and falsification testing principles and techniques accompanied by an empirical application. Sample STATA code related to the empirical application is provided in the Appendix.Comparative long-term risks of sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones for management of type 2 diabetes. Outcomes include mortality and hospitalization for an ambulatory care-sensitive condition. Prescribing pattern variations are used as instrumental variables.Falsification testing is an easily computed and powerful way to evaluate the validity of the key assumption underlying instrumental variables analysis. If falsification tests are used, instrumental variables techniques can help answer a multitude of important clinical questions.
| S-EPMC4799892 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesOur objective was to gather perspectives from payers on how comparative effectiveness research (CER) in the United States and relative effectiveness (RE) research in Europe will impact evidentiary standards for access decisions of new drugs by 2020.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with fourteen senior officials representing public and private payers, health technology assessment groups, and pricing and reimbursement bodies in the United States and Europe. An online survey assessed current use of CER/RE evidence and potential trends that might influence its use for decision making by 2020. A semi-structured interview elicited payers' definitions of CER/RE and was structured around four hypothetical cases resembling drugs expected to be more common or poised to create policy challenges by 2020. Topics included acceptance of study designs and analytic methods associated with CER/RE. A systematic content review was done to extract relevant information.ResultsAccording to key informants, randomization will remain an essential component for assessing comparative or relative effectiveness. They anticipate greater use of policy levers such as conditional reimbursement or prior authorization to manage diffusion of new drugs. Case studies provided important insights into situations when certain types of CER evidence may be acceptable (e.g., observational data when differences between drugs are largely convenience).ConclusionsIndustry perceptions that CER/RE will change payers' evidentiary requirements in the future are consistent with our findings. Growing investment in payers' own data and increased reliance on policy tools to control diffusion of new drugs may also influence the type of evidence industry will be required to produce by 2020.
| S-EPMC4505735 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough the efficacy of therapeutic lifestyle change (TLC) interventions are well proven, their relative effectiveness vs. single-session lifestyle counseling (SSC) on blood pressure (BP) reduction in primary care practices remains largely untested in hypertensive Blacks. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of a comprehensive practice-based TLC intervention (motivational interviewing (MINT)-TLC) vs. SSC on BP reduction among 194 Blacks with uncontrolled hypertension.MethodsThe MINT-TLC arm included 10 weekly group classes on TLC, followed by 3 individual MINT sessions. The SSC group received 1 individual counseling session on lifestyle modification plus print versions of the intervention material. The primary outcome was within-patient change in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) from baseline to 6 months. The secondary outcome was BP control at 6 months.ResultsMean age of the total sample was 57 (10.2) years; 50% were women, and the mean baseline BP was 147.4/89.3mm Hg. Eighty-four percent of SSC and 77% of MINT-TLC patients completed the final 6-month assessments. BP declined significantly (P < 0.001) in both groups at 6 months with a net-adjusted systolic BP reduction of 12.9 mm Hg for the SSC group vs. 9.5mm Hg for the MINT-TLC group (P = 0.18); and diastolic BP reduction of 7.6 and 7.2mm Hg for the SSC and MINT-TLC group, respectively (P = 0.79). The between-group difference in proportion of patients with adequate BP control at 6 months was nonsignificant (P = 0.82).ConclusionA significant group difference in BP between the intervention groups was not observed among a sample of hypertensive Blacks. Implementation of the pragmatic single-session intervention and its effects on utilization of healthcare services should be further evaluated.Clinical trial registrationTrial Number NCT01070056 at http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01070056?term=TLC+clinic&rank=1.
| S-EPMC4751244 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In nonrandomized studies of comparative effectiveness of medications, the prescriber may be the most important determinant of treatment assignment, yet the majority of analyses ignore the prescriber. Via Monte Carlo simulation, we evaluated the bias of 3 approaches that utilize the prescriber in analysis compared against the default approach that ignores the prescriber. Prescriber preference instrumental variable (IV) analyses were unbiased when IV criteria were met, which required no clustering of unmeasured patient characteristics within prescriber. In all other scenarios, IV analyses were highly biased, and stratification on the prescriber reduced confounding bias at the patient or prescriber levels. Including a prescriber random intercept in the propensity score model reversed the direction of confounding from measured patient factors and resulted in unpredictable changes in bias. Therefore, we recommend caution when using the IV approach, particularly when the instrument is weak. Stratification on the prescriber may be more robust; this approach warrants additional research.
| S-EPMC4347927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Institute of Medicine recently recommended that comparative effectiveness research (CER) should involve input from consumers. While systematic reviews are a major component of CER, little is known about consumer involvement.ObjectiveTo explore current approaches to involving consumers in US-based and key international organizations and groups conducting or commissioning systematic reviews ('organizations').DesignIn-depth, semi-structured interviews with key informants and review of organizations' websites.Setting and participantsSeventeen highly regarded US-based and international (Cochrane Collaboration, Campbell Collaboration) organizations.ResultsOrganizations that usually involve consumers (seven of 17 in our sample) involve them at a programmatic level in the organization or in individual reviews through one-time consultation or on-going collaboration. For example, consumers may suggest topics, provide input on the key questions of the review, provide comments on draft protocols and reports, serve as co-authors or on an advisory group. Organizations involve different types of consumers (individual patients, consumer advocates, families and caregivers), recruiting them mainly through patient organizations and consumer networks. Some offer training in research methods, and one developed training for researchers on how to involve consumers. Little formal evaluation of the effects of consumer involvement is being carried out.ConclusionsConsumers are currently involved in systematic reviews in a variety of ways and for various reasons. Assessing which approaches are most effective in achieving different aims of consumer involvement is now required to inform future recommendations on consumer involvement in CER.
| S-EPMC5060681 | biostudies-literature