Document Detail


A framework for understanding cancer comparative effectiveness research data needs.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  23017633     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials remain the gold standard for evaluating cancer intervention efficacy. Randomized trials are not always feasible, practical, or timely and often don't adequately reflect patient heterogeneity and real-world clinical practice. Comparative effectiveness research can leverage secondary data to help fill knowledge gaps randomized trials leave unaddressed; however, comparative effectiveness research also faces shortcomings. The goal of this project was to develop a new model and inform an evolving framework articulating cancer comparative effectiveness research data needs.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We examined prevalent models and conducted semi-structured discussions with 76 clinicians and comparative effectiveness research researchers affiliated with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's cancer comparative effectiveness research programs.
RESULTS: A new model was iteratively developed and presents cancer comparative effectiveness research and important measures in a patient-centered, longitudinal chronic care model better reflecting contemporary cancer care in the context of the cancer care continuum, rather than a single-episode, acute-care perspective.
CONCLUSION: Immediately relevant for federally funded comparative effectiveness research programs, the model informs an evolving framework articulating cancer comparative effectiveness research data needs, including evolutionary enhancements to registries and epidemiologic research data systems. We discuss elements of contemporary clinical practice, methodology improvements, and related needs affecting comparative effectiveness research's ability to yield findings clinicians, policy makers, and stakeholders can confidently act on.
Authors:
William R Carpenter; Anne-Marie Meyer; Amy P Abernethy; Til Stürmer; Michael R Kosorok
Related Documents :
22823003 - Attitudes to brain donation for parkinson's research and how to ask: a qualitative stud...
22629513 - The breasts of tutankhamun.
19017193 - Myxomatous neoplasms in the perineal region of baboons.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Journal of clinical epidemiology     Volume:  65     ISSN:  1878-5921     ISO Abbreviation:  J Clin Epidemiol     Publication Date:  2012 Nov 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2012-09-28     Completed Date:  2012-12-12     Revised Date:  2014-09-27    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  8801383     Medline TA:  J Clin Epidemiol     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  1150-8     Citation Subset:  IM    
Copyright Information:
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Chronic Disease
Comparative Effectiveness Research / methods*
Data Collection / methods*
Data Interpretation, Statistical
Humans
Models, Theoretical*
Needs Assessment
Neoplasms / therapy*
Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care)
Patient-Centered Care
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Registries*
United States
United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Grant Support
ID/Acronym/Agency:
HHSA290-205-0040-I-TO4-WA5//PHS HHS; HHSA290200500351//PHS HHS; P01 CA142538/CA/NCI NIH HHS; P01 CA142538/CA/NCI NIH HHS; P30 CA016086/CA/NCI NIH HHS
Comments/Corrections

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  The appropriateness method has acceptable reliability and validity for assessing overuse and underus...
Next Document:  A framework for best evidence approaches can improve the transparency of systematic reviews.