of priority setting using stakeholder input is imperative. The previous two chapters described systems for continuous stakeholder input, together with methodologies for identifying which of these topics deserve priority. However, the committee emphasizes the importance of repeating this exercise on a regular basis or of integrating aspects of the process described here into the routine determination of CER funding in order to sustain the effort to discover what works best and for whom.

REFERENCES

AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). 2009a. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Total Expenses for Conditions by Site of Service: United States. http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/ (accessed March 10, 2009).

———. 2009b. Total number of events accounting for expenditures by site of service: United States, 2006. In Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Component Data.

———. 2009c. Total number of people accounting for expenditures (deduplicated) by site of service: United States, 2006. In Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Component Data.

AHRQ Effective Health Care Program. 2009. Effective Health Care: Topic triage cover sheets.

Doyle, J., E. Waters, D. Yach, D. McQueen, A. De Francisco, T. Stewart, P. Reddy, A. M. Gulmezoglu, G. Galea, and A. Portela. 2005. Global priority setting for Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59:193-197.

HHS (Department of Health and Human Services). 2000. Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health. U.S. Government Printing Office. http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS4217 (accessed April 3, 2009).

Kung, H.-C., D. L. Hoyert, J. Xu, S. L. Murphy, and Division of Vital Statistics. 2008. Deaths: Final Data for 2005. National Vital Statistics Reports. National Center for Health Statistics.

NPP (National Priorities Partnership). 2008. National priorities and goals. Washington, DC: National Quality Forum.

U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. 2009. United States cancer statistics: 1999–2005 Incidence and mortality web-based report. Atlanta: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute.

Wennberg, J. E. 2009 (unpublished). Recommendations to the Institute of Medicine on comparative effectiveness research priorities. Submitted in response to a request from the Institute of Medicine Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.

Whitlock, E. P., S. A. Lopez, S. Chang, M. Helfand, M. Eder, and N. Floyd. 2009. Identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/repFiles/20090427IdenttifyingTopics.pdf (accessed June 5, 2009).



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement