Dataset Information

Making genomic medicine evidence-based and patient-centered: a structured review and landscape analysis of comparative effectiveness research.

ABSTRACT: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) in genomic medicine (GM) measures the clinical utility of using genomic information to guide clinical care in comparison to appropriate alternatives. We summarized findings of high-quality systematic reviews that compared the analytic and clinical validity and clinical utility of GM tests. We focused on clinical utility findings to summarize CER-derived evidence about GM and identify evidence gaps and future research needs. We abstracted key elements of study design, GM interventions, results, and study quality ratings from 21 systematic reviews published in 2010 through 2015. More than half (N = 13) of the reviews were of cancer-related tests. All reviews identified potentially important clinical applications of the GM interventions, but most had significant methodological weaknesses that largely precluded any conclusions about clinical utility. Twelve reviews discussed the importance of patient-centered outcomes, although few described evidence about the impact of genomic medicine on these outcomes. In summary, we found a very limited body of evidence about the effect of using genomic tests on health outcomes and many evidence gaps for CER to address.Genet Med advance online publication 13 April 2017.

SUBMITTER: Phillips KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5629101 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe used various methods for identifying and prioritizing patient-centered outcomes (PCOs) for comparative effectiveness research (CER).MethodsWe considered potential PCOs ("benefits" and "harms") related to (1) gabapentin for neuropathic pain and (2) quetiapine for bipolar depression. Part 1 (April 2014 to March 2015): we searched for PCO research and core outcome sets (COSs). We conducted electronic searches of bibliographic databases and key websites and examined FDA prescribing information and reports of clinical trials and systematic reviews. We asked patient and clinician co-investigators to identify PCOs. Part 2 (not part of our original study protocol): in 2015, we surveyed members of The TMJ Association, Ltd., a patient group associated with temporomandibular disorders (4130 invitations sent). Participants prioritized (1) the importance of six potential benefits and (2) 21 potential harms selected by the investigators in part 1, using stated preference methods. We calculated descriptive statistics.ResultsIn part 1, we identified a COS for pain, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) recommendations. The COS identified several important benefits, but it lacked specific recommendations about which potential harms to include in CER. We did not identify a COS for bipolar depression. Research reports, prescribing information, and patient co-investigators helped identify but not prioritize outcomes. We abandoned our electronic search for PCO research because we found it would be resource-intensive and yield few relevant reports. In part 2, surveying patients was useful for prioritizing PCOs. Members of The TMJ Association, Ltd., completed the survey (N =?746) and successfully prioritized both benefits and harms. Participants did not identify many benefits other than those we identified in part 1; several participants identified additional harms.ConclusionsThese exploratory results could inform future research about identifying and prioritizing PCOs. We found that stakeholder co-investigators and research reports contributed to identifying PCOs; surveying a patient group contributed to prioritizing PCOs. Prioritizing potential harms was particularly challenging because there are many more potential harms than potential benefits. Methods for identifying and prioritizing potential benefits for CER might not be appropriate for harms. Further research is needed to determine the generalizability of these results.

Project description:This project compared the effectiveness of two evidence-based models of culturally competent diabetes health promotion: The Diabetes Self-Management Support Empowerment Model (DSMS), and The Chronic Care Model (CCM). Our primary outcome was improvement in patient capacity for diabetes self-management as measured by the Diabetes Knowledge Questionnaire (DKQ) and the Patient Activation Measure (PAM). Our secondary outcome was patient success at diabetes self-management as measured by improvement in A1c, depression sores using the PHQ-9, and Body Mass Index (BMI). We also gathered data on the cultural competence of the program using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Cultural Competence Set (CAHPS-CC). We compared patient outcomes in two existing sites in Albuquerque, New Mexico that serve a large population of Latino diabetes patients from low-income households. Participants were enrolled as dyads-a patient participant (n=226) and a social support participant (n=226). Outcomes over time and by program were analyzed using longitudinal linear mixed modeling, adjusted for patient participant demographic characteristics and other potential confounding covariates. Secondary outcomes were also adjusted for potential confounders. Interactions with both time and program helped to assess outcomes. This study did not find a difference between the two sites with respect to the primary outcome measures and only one of the three secondary outcomes showed differential results. The main difference between programs was that depression decreased more for CCM than for DSMS. An exploratory, subgroup analysis revealed that at CCM, patient participants with a very high A1c (>10) demonstrated a clinically meaningful decrease. However, given the higher cultural competence rating for the CCM, statistically significant improvement in depression, and the importance of social support to the patients, results suggest that a culturally and contextually situated diabetes self-management and education program design may deliver benefit for patients, especially for patients with higher A1c levels.

Project description:BackgroundThe comparative effectiveness (CE) of endoscopic screening (versus no screening) for Barrett's esophagus (BE) in patients with GERD symptoms, or among different endoscopic surveillance strategies in patients with BE, for the early detection of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) is unknown. Furthermore, it is unclear if patients or providers have or will adopt any of these strategies (screening only, screening and surveillance, vs. none), irrespective of their effectiveness. Endoscopic screening and surveillance is expensive and can be risky. Therefore, it is imperative to establish the CE and acceptability about the risks and outcomes related to these practices to better inform expert recommendations and provider-patient decisions.Methods/resultsWe propose a mixed methods study which will involve: (1) an analysis of secondary databases (VA and VA-Medicare linked datasets for 2004-09) to examine CE of endoscopic screening and surveillance in an observational study cohort (an estimated 680,000 patients with GERD; 25,000-30,000 with BE; and 3,000 with EA); (2) a structured electronic medical record (EMR) review on a national sample of patients using VA EMRs to verify all EA cases, identify cancer stage, cancer-targeted therapy, and validate the screening and surveillance endoscopy; and (3) qualitative in depth interviews with patients and providers to elicit preferences, norms, and behaviors to explain clinical contexts of these findings and address gaps arising from the CE study.ConclusionThis study will compare clinical strategies for detecting and monitoring BE, a pre-cancerous lesion. Additionally, by eliciting acceptability of these strategies for patients and providers, we will be able to propose effective and feasible strategies that are likely to be implemented in routine use. Findings will inform recommendations for clinical practice guidelines. Our innovative approach is consistent with the methodological standards of patient-centered outcomes research, and our findings will offer a significant contribution to the literature on cancer surveillance.

Dataset Information

Making genomic medicine evidence-based and patient-centered: a structured review and landscape analysis of comparative effectiveness research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets