Patient, caregiver and clinician use of comparative effectiveness research findings in care decisions: results from a national study

A Culture-Centered Community-Grounded Approach to Disseminating Health Information among African Americans

This study highlights the role of local communities in creating culturally rooted health information resources based on comparative effectiveness research (CER), depicting the role of culture in creating entry points for building community-grounded communication structures for evidence-based health knowledge. We report the results from running a year-long culture-centered campaign that was carried out among African American communities in two counties, Lake and Marion County, in Indiana addressing basic evidence-based knowledge on four areas of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Campaign effectiveness was tested through an experimental design with post-test knowledge of CER among African Americans in these counties compared to CER knowledge among African Americans in a comparable control county (Allen). Our campaign, based on the principles of the culture-centered approach (CCA), increased community CER knowledge in the experimental communities relative to a community that did not receive the culturally centered health information campaign. The CCA-based campaign developed by community members and distributed through the mass media, community wide channels such as health fairs and church meetings, postcards, and face-to-face interventions explaining the postcards improved CER knowledge in specific areas (ACE-I/ARBs, atrial fibrillation, and renal artery stenosis) in the CCA communities as compared to the control community.

Leveraging Patient/Community Partnerships to Disseminate Patient Centered Outcomes Research in Geriatrics

Background: With the growth of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR), partnerships between researchers and patients have presented novel opportunities for disseminating results. A large gap exists in disseminating patient-centered research results to older adult patient end-users. We sought to examine the experiences of patient/community partners in disseminating PCOR results and characterize lessons learned that may facilitate future researcher-patient/community dissemination partnerships. Methods: Patient/community partners who participated in geriatrics-focused PCORI-funded research and were active in disseminating results, as part of their planned activities, were recruited for one-to-one qualitative interviews. Constant comparative and thematic analysis were used to identify and describe common themes that emerged in a survey of open-ended questions. Results: Ten individuals (four community partners, six patients) aged 55–87 years were interviewed. Analysis revealed that for successful dissemination, subjects felt it was vital to reach out to people affected by the results, leverage personal stories, and tap into pre-developed programming. Patient/Community partners identified potential audiences through word-of-mouth, community requests, and mapping a list of audiences—targeting those directly affected as well as those who worked with the audience (e.g., not specifically medical). Patient/community partners recommended that researchers engage patient/community partners for suggestions on audiences, show empathy, include diverse populations, and maintain a community-focus. One community partner stated, “Why wouldn’t we help disseminate results? It’s a no-brainer. We know people!” Conclusion: Patient/community partners provide effective ways to communicate results, new audiences to reach, improved communication with different audiences, and improved credibility of the findings. The lessons learned have implications for assisting future research-patient/community partnerships in the dissemination of their patient-centered research.

Introducing Volume 7 of the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Welcome to the seventh volume of the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. It is great to start the year with a look back at some of our successes from 2017, as well as a look forward to the content of this issue and beyond.

Good Practices for Real-World Data Studies of Treatment and/or Comparative Effectiveness: Recommendations from the Joint ISPOR-ISPE Special Task Force on Real-World Evidence in Health Care Decision Making

PURPOSE

Real-world evidence (RWE) includes data from retrospective or prospective observational studies and observational registries and provides insights beyond those addressed by randomized controlled trials. RWE studies aim to improve health care decision making.

METHODS

The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) created a task force to make recommendations regarding good procedural practices that would enhance decision makers' confidence in evidence derived from RWD studies. Peer review by ISPOR/ISPE members and task force participants provided a consensus-building iterative process for the topics and framing of recommendations.

RESULTS

The ISPOR/ISPE Task Force recommendations cover seven topics such as study registration, replicability, and stakeholder involvement in RWE studies. These recommendations, in concert with earlier recommendations about study methodology, provide a trustworthy foundation for the expanded use of RWE in health care decision making.

CONCLUSION

The focus of these recommendations is good procedural practices for studies that test a specific hypothesis in a specific population. We recognize that some of the recommendations in this report may not be widely adopted without appropriate incentives from decision makers, journal editors, and other key stakeholders.

Good practices for real-world data studies of treatment and/or comparative effectiveness: Recommendations from the joint ISPOR-ISPE Special Task Force on real-world evidence in health care decision making

PURPOSE

Real-world evidence (RWE) includes data from retrospective or prospective observational studies and observational registries and provides insights beyond those addressed by randomized controlled trials. RWE studies aim to improve health care decision making.

METHODS

The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) created a task force to make recommendations regarding good procedural practices that would enhance decision makers' confidence in evidence derived from RWD studies. Peer review by ISPOR/ISPE members and task force participants provided a consensus-building iterative process for the topics and framing of recommendations.

RESULTS

The ISPOR/ISPE Task Force recommendations cover seven topics such as study registration, replicability, and stakeholder involvement in RWE studies. These recommendations, in concert with earlier recommendations about study methodology, provide a trustworthy foundation for the expanded use of RWE in health care decision making.

CONCLUSION

The focus of these recommendations is good procedural practices for studies that test a specific hypothesis in a specific population. We recognize that some of the recommendations in this report may not be widely adopted without appropriate incentives from decision makers, journal editors, and other key stakeholders.

Patient, caregiver and clinician views on engagement in comparative effectiveness research

AIM

Describe patient, caregiver and clinician views toward engagement as partners in health research.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Online surveys of patients and caregivers managing rare (n = 560 patients, n = 609 caregivers) or chronic conditions (n = 762 patients, n = 776 caregivers) and practicing clinicians (n = 638).

RESULTS

Over half of respondents were unfamiliar with the concept of partnering with researchers but most expressed interest in working in a research partnership. Potential facilitators endorsed were ensuring research is meaningful, applying results in an understandable way, and sharing results. Lack of time is a potential barrier. Clinicians were most interested in helping researchers decide on intervention comparisons and identifying implications for clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

Patients, caregivers and clinicians are interested in research roles that emphasize usefulness and understandability of research.