Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Research Article
8 February 2017

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

Authors: Lori B Frank, Laura P Forsythe [email protected], Thomas A Workman, Tandrea Hilliard, Mary Lavelle, Daniel Harwell, and Lauren FayishAuthor Info & Affiliations
Publication: J. Comp. Eff. Res.
Volume 6, Number 3
https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2016-0061
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: To assess awareness, use and attitudes concerning comparative effectiveness research (CER) findings. 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: Less than half of patients and caregivers reported exposure to any type of CER findings in the past 12 months. Of those, over half identify healthcare professionals as the information source, yet only 10% of clinicians indicated they were ‘very familiar’ with CER. Clinicians were concerned about the time required to find relevant evidence and the appropriateness of comparisons in available health research. Conclusion: Clinicians, patients and caregivers indicate unmet need for incorporating CER research findings into clinical decision-making.

Formats available

You can view the full content in the following formats:

View PDFView Full Text

Supplementary Material

File (suppl_material.pdf)

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: •• of considerable interest
1.
Sox H, Greenfield S. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institutes of Medicine. Ann. Intern. Med. 151(3), 203–205 (2009).
PubMed
Google Scholar
2.
Darling H. Employee attitudes toward health information and comparative effectiveness research (2011). www.changehealthcare.com/downloads/industry/02.01.2011%20NBGH%20EE%20Attitudes.pdf.
Google Scholar
3.
Williams SS, Frost SL. Differences among consumer segments with regard to perceptions of comparative effectiveness research. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 3(6), 617–622 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
4.
US Senate and House of Representatives. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law. 111–148 111th Congres (2010). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf.
Google Scholar
5.
US Senate and House of Representatives. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, Public Law. 111–115 111th Congress (2009). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr1enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr1enr.pdf.
Google Scholar
6.
Esposito D, Yong PL, Rich E, Geonnotti K, Kimmey LD. The ARRA investment in CER: a description of the midstream evaluation and how the funds were allocated and CER priorities addressed. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 3(6), 581–589 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
7.
Forsythe LP, Frank L, Walker KO et al. Patient and clinician views on comparative effectiveness research and engagement in research. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 4(1), 11–25 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Results from prior research that was used in the development and analysis of the current study.
8.
Cornwell D, Hu M, Esposito D. Public perceptions of comparative effectiveness research and use of evidence in healthcare decision-making. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 3(6), 623–634 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Prior research used to inform the current study.
9.
Keyhani S, Woodward M, Federman AD. Physician views on the use of comparative effectiveness research: a national survey. Ann. Intern. Med. 153(8), 551–552 (2010).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• Results from prior research that was used in the development and analysis of the current study.
10.
Forsythe LP, Frank LB, Workman TA et al. Health researcher views on comparative effectiveness research and research engagement. J. Comp. Eff. Res. (2016) (Epub ahead of print).
Crossref
Google Scholar
11.
Forsythe LP, Frank LB, Workman TA, Hilliard T, Harwell D, Fayish L. Patient, caregiver, and clinician views on engagement in comparative effectiveness research. J. Comp. Eff. Res. (2016) (Epub ahead of print).
Crossref
Google Scholar
12.
Lowry SJ, Loggers ET, Bowles E, Wagner EH. Evidence gaps in advanced cancer care: community-based clinicians’ perspectives and priorities for CER. Am. J. Manag. Care 18(5 Spec No. 2), SP77–83 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
13.
Reynolds C, Martin D, Dubois RW, Westrich K. Comparative effectiveness research: do employers care? What will they do? (2011). www.npcnow.org/publication/comparative-effectiveness-research-do-employers-care-what-will-they-do.
Google Scholar
14.
Schneider EC, Epstein AM. Use of public performance reports: a survey of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 279(20), 1638–1642 (1998).
Google Scholar
15.
Weidmer B, Hurtado M, Weech-Maldonado R, Ngo-Metzger Q, Bogen K. Guidelines for translating CAHPS surveys. Prepared by the CAHPS II Cultural Comparability Team (2006). https://www.ahrq.gov/cahps/surveys-guidance/helpful-resources/resources/cahpsGuidelines_Translation.html.
Google Scholar
16.
Dillman Don A, Smyth JD, Christian LM. Internet, mail and mixed-mode surveys. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA (2009).
Google Scholar
17.
Ziegenfuss JY, Burmeister KR, Harris A, Holubar SD, Beebe TJ. Telephone follow-up to a mail survey: when to offer an interview compared to a reminder call. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 12(1), 32 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.
Braddock C, Fihn S, Levinson W, Jonsen A, Pearlman R. How doctors and patients discuss routine clinical decisions: informed decision making in the outpatient setting. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 12(6), 339–345 (1997).
PubMed
Google Scholar
19.
Statacorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA (2013).
Google Scholar
20.
Rich EC. From concept to policy: 10 years after the call for a US center for comparative effectiveness information. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 6(1), 9–11 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
21.
Brom L, Hopmans W, Pasman HR, Timmermans DR, Widdershoven GA, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD. Congruence between patients’ preferred and perceived participation in medical decision-making: a review of the literature. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 14, 25 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
22.
Bouniols N, Leclère B, Moret L. Evaluating the quality of shared decision making during the patient-carer encounter: a systematic review of tools. BMC Res. Notes 9(1), 382 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
23.
Eijk MVD, Faber M, Aarts J, Kremer J, Munneke M, Bloem B. Using online communities to deliver patient-centered care to people with chronic conditions. J. Med. Internet Res. 15(6), e115 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
24.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQ Projects funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (2016). www.ahrq.gov/funding/training-grants/pcor/pcortf-di.html.
Google Scholar
25.
Ioannidis JP. Why most clinical research is not useful. PLoS Med. 13(6), e1002049 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
|