improvement, new methodologies, research networks, technical assistance.

  1. Desirability of a common venue to identify and characterize the need categories, begin to estimate the shortfalls, consider approaches to addressing the shortfalls, and identify priority next steps.

Discussion assumptions: (1) Resources will be available to expand work on the comparative effectiveness of medical interventions, and (2) a designated entity will exist with a formal charge to coordinate the expanded work.

Goal: Clarify the elements and nature of the needed capacity, solicit quantitative and qualitative assessments of the needs, and characterize in a fashion that will facilitate engagement of the issues by policy makers.

DAY ONE

8:00

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

John W. Rowe, Columbia University & IOM Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine

8:15

KEYNOTE: A VISION FOR THE CAPACITY TO LEARN WHAT CARE WORKS BEST

What are the core elements of a robust and sustainable capacity for comparative effectiveness research? How do they relate to each other as a real infrastructure? What are the priorities and how might we build upon, link, and improve existing public and private system elements?

Mark B. McClellan, Brookings Institution & IOM Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine

8:45

SESSION 1: THE WORK REQUIRED

Each presenter will describe the nature of the activity and what is known about the current capacity, suggest an approach to determining the necessary capacity, give an “opening bid” estimate of what that need might be, and offer initial suggestions on policies or activities for progress.

Chair: Mark B. McClellan, Brookings Institution & IOM Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine



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