Abstract
Clinical research needs to be more useful to patients, clinicians, and other decision makers. To meet this need, more research should focus on patient-centered outcomes, compare viable alternatives, and be responsive to individual patients' preferences, needs, pathobiology, settings, and values. These features, which make comparative effectiveness research (CER) fundamentally patient-centered, challenge researchers to adopt or develop methods that improve the timeliness, relevance, and practical application of clinical studies. In this paper, we describe 10 priority areas that address 3 critical needs for research on patient-centered outcomes (PCOR): developing and testing trustworthy methods to identify and prioritize important questions for research improving the design, conduct, and analysis of clinical research studies and linking the process and outcomes of actual practice to priorities for research on patient-centered outcomes. We argue that the National Institutes of Health, through its clinical and translational research program, should accelerate the development and refinement of methods for CER by linking a program of methods research to the broader portfolio of large, prospective clinical and health system studies it supports. Insights generated by this work should be of enormous value to PCORI and to the broad range of organizations that will be funding and implementing CER.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 188-198 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Clinical and Translational Science |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jun 2011 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Clinical research methods
- Comparative effectiveness
- Patient-centered outcomes research
- Translational science
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Medicine(all)
- Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
- Neuroscience(all)
- Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics(all)
Cite this
A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research. / Helfand, Mark; Tunis, Sean; Whitlock, Evelyn P.; Pauker, Stephen G.; Basu, Anirban; Chilingerian, Jon; Harrell, Frank E.; Meltzer, David O.; Montori, Victor M.; Shepard, Donald S.; Kent, David M.
In: Clinical and Translational Science, Vol. 4, No. 3, 06.2011, p. 188-198.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research
AU - Helfand, Mark
AU - Tunis, Sean
AU - Whitlock, Evelyn P.
AU - Pauker, Stephen G.
AU - Basu, Anirban
AU - Chilingerian, Jon
AU - Harrell, Frank E.
AU - Meltzer, David O.
AU - Montori, Victor M.
AU - Shepard, Donald S.
AU - Kent, David M.
PY - 2011/6
Y1 - 2011/6
N2 - Clinical research needs to be more useful to patients, clinicians, and other decision makers. To meet this need, more research should focus on patient-centered outcomes, compare viable alternatives, and be responsive to individual patients' preferences, needs, pathobiology, settings, and values. These features, which make comparative effectiveness research (CER) fundamentally patient-centered, challenge researchers to adopt or develop methods that improve the timeliness, relevance, and practical application of clinical studies. In this paper, we describe 10 priority areas that address 3 critical needs for research on patient-centered outcomes (PCOR): developing and testing trustworthy methods to identify and prioritize important questions for research improving the design, conduct, and analysis of clinical research studies and linking the process and outcomes of actual practice to priorities for research on patient-centered outcomes. We argue that the National Institutes of Health, through its clinical and translational research program, should accelerate the development and refinement of methods for CER by linking a program of methods research to the broader portfolio of large, prospective clinical and health system studies it supports. Insights generated by this work should be of enormous value to PCORI and to the broad range of organizations that will be funding and implementing CER.
AB - Clinical research needs to be more useful to patients, clinicians, and other decision makers. To meet this need, more research should focus on patient-centered outcomes, compare viable alternatives, and be responsive to individual patients' preferences, needs, pathobiology, settings, and values. These features, which make comparative effectiveness research (CER) fundamentally patient-centered, challenge researchers to adopt or develop methods that improve the timeliness, relevance, and practical application of clinical studies. In this paper, we describe 10 priority areas that address 3 critical needs for research on patient-centered outcomes (PCOR): developing and testing trustworthy methods to identify and prioritize important questions for research improving the design, conduct, and analysis of clinical research studies and linking the process and outcomes of actual practice to priorities for research on patient-centered outcomes. We argue that the National Institutes of Health, through its clinical and translational research program, should accelerate the development and refinement of methods for CER by linking a program of methods research to the broader portfolio of large, prospective clinical and health system studies it supports. Insights generated by this work should be of enormous value to PCORI and to the broad range of organizations that will be funding and implementing CER.
KW - Clinical research methods
KW - Comparative effectiveness
KW - Patient-centered outcomes research
KW - Translational science
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79959728798&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79959728798&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00282.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00282.x
M3 - Article
C2 - 21707950
AN - SCOPUS:79959728798
VL - 4
SP - 188
EP - 198
JO - Clinical and Translational Science
JF - Clinical and Translational Science
SN - 1752-8054
IS - 3
ER -