National Academies Press: OpenBook

Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary (2011)

Chapter: Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)

« Previous: Appendix B: Comparative Effectiveness Studies Inventory Project
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

Appendix C



Comparative Effectiveness
Research Priorities
IOM Recommendations (2009)
1

____________________

1 Passage from the Institute of Medicine Report, Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research June 30, 2009. National Academies Press.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

5


Priorities for Study


Abstract: The Institute of Medicine Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization was charged with developing a portfolio of priority topics that reflected balance across research areas, populations, type of interventions, and methodologies. The final list of 100 priority CER topics includes a large number addressing health care delivery systems, and a large number that consider racial and ethnic disparities. All but 3 of the 32 originally delineated research areas are represented. Similarly, the priority research topics include studies examining various special population categories, including individuals with rare diseases. This chapter presents the full list of priority CER topics.


As explained in detail in Chapter 1, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee’s statement of task charged the committee with developing a list of priority comparative effectiveness research (CER) topics and presenting those recommendations for the Secretary to consider. To develop the list, the committee obtained substantial public input (described in Chapter 3) and followed a multistage process of individual and collective deliberation (described in Chapter 4). The final portfolio, described in this chapter, contains 100 priority topics. The first half of the chapter is a “portfolio analysis,” which shows the representation of research areas, study populations, comparators, and study methodologies within the final 100 topics. The second half of the chapter presents the specific CER topics prioritized by the committee, together with a description of their relevance.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

ASSEMBLING A DIVERSE PORTFOLIO

As described in Chapter 4, the committee utilized the concept of a diverse research portfolio, meaning that the committee’s priority topics reflect a balance of CER questions across research area (i.e., disorders by organ systems, specific populations, systems of care), study populations (i.e., men, women, children, minority groups), types of interventions (i.e., comparators, such as surgical or pharmaceutical treatments), and study methodologies (i.e., randomized controlled trials, registry studies, systematic reviews). The committee wanted to ensure that the final list of topics represents not only those diseases and conditions with the greatest effects on the health of the U.S. population, but also that it includes other diseases and conditions that disproportionately and seriously affect subgroups of the population (such as women, minorities, and children and adolescents). In addition, the committee wanted to ensure its priority topics examine a variety of interventions, including studies examining prevention, systems of care, pharmacological treatments, devices, surgery, and monitoring of disease. The committee also sought to achieve balance in the distribution of proposed methodologies so that some answers could be obtained within the 2-year framework specified by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, while other research questions would require a longer timeframe. For example, CER conducted from established databases and from systematic reviews of the current literature holds the potential to provide information relatively rapidly, whereas performance of randomized controlled clinical trials or prospective observational trials would extend well beyond the 2-year focus of the ARRA.

The committee strongly believes that CER should be conducted using “real-world” patients, so that results are readily generalizable across populations. Therefore, it is important that sponsors design CER studies to ensure adequate numbers of all relevant population and patient subgroups, including all genders and patients representing a wide range of races, ethnicities, levels of health literacy, and ages, as well as those with multiple chronic conditions.

The following sections conduct a “portfolio analysis”—an analysis of the distribution of the committee’s final 100 priority topics across the portfolio variables, including (1) research areas, (2) study populations, (3) interventions, and (4) study methodologies. A successful portfolio is one that is widely distributed across these dimensions. It is important to recognize that the precision of the information in this section was limited by the procedures that were required to meet the committee’s deadline. In the future, thorough topic nomination development requires interaction with the nominators and other stakeholders to sufficiently develop the nomina-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

tion and to ensure that the supporting evidence accurately conveys the context and the main points of the nomination (Whitlock et al., 2009).

The following sections display the distribution of the committee’s priority list by the portfolio criteria: research area, population, intervention, and methodology. In addition, an interactive electronic file providing search capabilities for priority topics by portfolio criteria is available at www.iom.edu/cerpriorities. This spreadsheet will allow the reader to search, for example, all cardiovascular disease topics affecting women and children, or to study the effectiveness of procedures for their treatment. The search will also indicate which quartile the committee assigned each topic.

DIVERSITY OF RESEARCH AREAS

As described earlier, one of the committee’s main methods of categorizing the proposed priority topics was by research area. The committee identified 32 categories of research areas based on disease classification, other patient conditions, and systems of care.1 However, because many of the conditions co-occur frequently (e.g., obesity and osteoarthritis), and many of the nominated priorities mentioned both a disease and a system of care (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease and nursing home care), most of the priority topics could be classified according to two or more research areas.2 For example, a topic to study alternative strategies for treating heart disease in African American patients with diabetes could have been classified as cardiovascular disease, endocrinology (which includes diabetes care), and racial and ethnic disparities. In addition, if that research question involved comparing alternative organizational approaches to care, such as coordinated disease management programs or remote monitoring of patients’ symptoms, the topic could also be classified under the health care delivery system area. In fact, among the final 100 priority topics, the average number of assignable research categories was three.

To determine whether the committee’s priority list was balanced across research areas, each priority was categorized by all of the possible research areas that reasonably described it. For the purposes of this exercise, one area was designated as the primary topic. Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1 show the breakdown of the 100 final priority topics categorized by research area. In Table 5-1, the topic’s primary research area is shown with assigned secondary research areas, if reported. Several areas are prominently represented.

_______________________

1 Refer to Chapter 3 to see how the committee developed the list of 32 research area categories.

2 In the classification exercise that took place at each stage of the IOM committee’s deliberations, however, each nominated recommendation was placed into only one area, which was considered its primary research area.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

TABLE 5-1 Recommended Research Priorities by Research Area

Category Primary Research Area Secondary Research Area Total
Health Care Delivery Systems*   23   27   50
Racial and Ethnic Disparities     3   26   29
Cardiovascular and Peripheral Vascular Disease     8   13   21
Geriatrics     2   19   21
Functional Limitations and Disabilities     2   20   22
Neurologic Disorders     6   11   17
Psychiatric Disorders     7   10   17
Pediatrics     1   15   16
Endocrinology and Metabolism Disorders     2   12   14
Musculoskeletal Disorders     5     7   12
Oncology and Hematology     6     5   11
Women’s Health     5     2     7
Alcoholism, Drug Dependency, and Overdose     2     4     6
Infectious Diseases     3     2     5
Skin Disorders     3     1     4
Birth and Developmental Disorders     3     1     4
Nutrition (including obesity)     3     1     4
Immune System, Connective Tissue, and Joint Disorders     1     3     4
Eyes, Ears, Nose, and Throat Disorders     2     1     3
Trauma, Emergency Medicine, and Critical Care Medicine     1     2     3
Complementary and Alternative Medicine     3     0     3
Kidney and Urinary Tract Disorders     2     1     3
Oral Health     2     1     3
Respiratory Disease     1     2     3
Genetics and Disease     0     3     3
Gastrointestinal System Disorders     1     1     2
Palliative and End-of-Life Care     2     0     2
Sexual Function and Reproductive Disorders     0     2     2
Liver and Biliary Tract Disorders     1     1     2
Total 100 193 293

* Although this category was described as “Safety and Quality of Health Care” in the web-based questionnaire, the category was relabeled by the committee as “Health Care Delivery Systems” to be more accurate.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

image

FIGURE 5-1 Distribution of the recommended research priorities by primary and secondary research areas.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

Half of all topics involve a comparison to some aspect of the healthcare delivery system. Research topics categorized in this group focus on comparing how or where services are provided, rather than which services are provided. The prominence of health care delivery systems in the portfolio primarily reflects the interest of the public in this area, as well as the committee’s belief that an early investment in CER should focus on learning how to make services more effective. Nearly one-third of the total recommended topics involve research that addresses racial and ethnic disparities and nearly one-fifth address functional limitations and disabilities. Other frequently represented areas are cardiovascular disease, geriatrics, psychiatric disorders, neurologic disorders, and pediatrics.

Twenty-nine out of the original 32 research areas are represented in the final portfolio. The missing categories include medical aspects of bioterrorism, pancreatic disorders, and regenerative medicine. The fact that there are no topics from any of these categories in the final list is less of a reflection of these categories’ importance than of the fact that these categories only received 2 nominations out of the total 1,268 topics that entered the first round of voting and that the committee did not score the particular topics nominated within these categories as highly as topics in other categories. The portfolio’s inclusion of 29 out of the original 32 research areas suggests that an investment in CER based on the committee’s portfolio recommendations would comprehensively explore a broad spectrum of disease. It is interesting to note that, when asked for input, the public responded with recommendations that spanned a full portfolio of research areas.3

DIVERSITY OF POPULATIONS

A balanced portfolio should include a consideration of the demographic characteristics of the populations and subpopulations to be studied, including minority, racial, and ethnic groups; gender; and different age groups ranging from infancy to the elderly. It should also consider less obvious factors that affect health care, such as geographic location, socioeconomic status, educational achievement, and cultural differences; and it should be proportionately representative of those factors. Table 5-2 displays the 100 final priority topics categorized by study population. Many of the nominators of the priority topics selected more than one population as appropriate for the proposed research. Adults, including the elderly and the general population, are the most frequently represented study populations in the committee’s portfolio. Other populations well represented in

_______________________

3 As discussed in Chapter 3, 82 percent of the committee’s final priority list were nominated by the public; 18 percent were nominated by the committee during its in-depth discussion of the priority list.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

TABLE 5-2 Committee’s Recommended Research Priorities by Study Populations

Study Population Number of Topics

Adults (including elderly)

  36

Population at Large (general population)

  28

Women

  27

Special Populations (e.g., pregnant women, low income, patients with disabilities)

  24

Men

  22

Children and Adolescents Only

  20

Elderly Only

  15

Other

  12

Long-Term Care

    7

Ethnic Subpopulations Only

    5

Adults (excluding elderly)

    4

Rare Diseases

    2

Total

202

NOTE: The total exceeds the total number of priority topics because respondents were allowed to select multiple populations for each topic.

the committee’s portfolio are women, special populations (such as pregnant women and low-income families and individuals), men, and children and adolescents.

Based on the answers to the open-ended questions given by the questionnaire respondents, the “other” category in the table encompasses a wide variety of study populations, such as those with chronic conditions, cancer survivors, persons with psychiatric and mental disabilities, and persons at risk of developing heart disease.

DIVERSITY OF INTERVENTIONS

Another component of a balanced portfolio is that it should cover all steps in the trajectory of health care, from prevention and screening to diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic health problems to palliative and end-of-life care. It should also reflect the full range of care modalities, from behavioral changes to pharmacological treatment to radiation to surgery. Table 5-3 displays the 100 final priority topics categorized by type of intervention or strategy proposed for the CER study. Types of comparators represented in the portfolio range from institutional and organization-based, such as management and delivery of health care, to patient-centered interventions. The patient-centered interventions range from completely

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

TABLE 5-3 Committee’s Recommended Research Priorities by Types of Intervention

Types of Interventions Number of Topics
Systems of Care   43
Pharmacological Treatment   36
Standard of Care   33
Behavioral Treatment   29
Prevention   24
Procedures   23
Provider-Patient Relationships   20
Treatment Pathways   19
Testing, Monitoring, and Evaluation   17
Devices   13
Alternative Treatment     9
Other   18
Total 284

NOTE: The total exceeds the total number of priority topics because respondents were allowed to select multiple interventions to be compared for each topic.

noninvasive approaches, such as ways to persuade patients to adopt healthier behavior, to major surgical procedures.

The interventions most strongly represented in the committee’s portfolio are systems of care, pharmacologic treatment, and standard of care comparisons. Other frequently proposed types of interventions include behavioral treatments, disease prevention modalities, medical or surgical procedures (including radiological procedures), provider-patient forms of communication or other features of provider-patient relations, and treatment pathways (or clinical guidelines).

The list includes a broad array of diagnostic and therapeutic actions taken by primary care physicians and specialists. It also includes actions taken by other health professionals, ancillary service providers, administrators, and, importantly, health care leaders—for example, professional associations that develop treatment pathways. The “other” category includes interventions such as complementary care and economic incentives.

DIVERSITY OF STUDY METHODOLOGIES

Table 5-4 displays the division of the 100 final priority topics by study methodology. The four major methodologies identified by the committee as appropriate for CER are well represented on the committee’s portfolio. Thus, the committee’s portfolio provides a list of CER questions that vary

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

TABLE 5-4 Committee’s Recommended Research Priorities by Study Methodology

Methodology Number of Topics
Randomized Trial   49
Prospective Observational Study   46
Database Research   27
Systematic Review   23
TOTAL 145

NOTE: The total exceeds the total number of priority topics because respondents were allowed to select multiple methodologies for each topic.

widely in terms of resource requirements, timelines, and types of infrastructure necessary to conduct the research. For example, a database study using existing databases could be performed more rapidly and economically than a randomized clinical trial, but its findings and conclusions may be less definitive. The appropriate choice of method depends on the nature of the research, on whether the intervention is currently in use, on whether sufficient data are available to identify a large group of persons receiving the intervention and suitable unbiased comparator groups, and whether a range of patient outcomes is recorded.

INTRODUCTION TO FINAL LIST OF PRIORITY TOPICS

In preparing the list for presentation in this report, the committee refined the wording of each priority topic to fit a common format that indicates the research area, two or more interventions to be compared, the population, and, where appropriate and feasible, the outcomes of interest. The committee did not attempt to change the essence of the research question, or to change or add specific outcomes, nor did the committee attempt to refine the topics by specifying methodologies or comparators that the nominator did not provide. The committee fully anticipates that funding agencies, when preparing their Requests for Applications based on these priority topics, will provide details on the scope of the clinical problem, the current best practices, and the potential alternative approaches. It is ultimately the responsibility of the research teams applying for funding to propose the precise population, comparators, outcomes, and methodologies to be undertaken in the studies attempting to answer the priority questions. Moreover, a single priority topic is likely to generate alternative designs, so the committee’s 100 priorities will likely provide the opportunity for many more than 100 specific research studies.

The voting process (described in detail in Chapter 4) introduced a substantial degree of subjectivity and variable weighting of topics. The com-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

BOX 5-1
Round 3 Voting Procedures

One hundred fifty-five nominated research topics were considered in the committee’s third round of voting. Each committee member was allocated 300 total points to distribute among the 155 topics but could not award more than 30 points to any one topic. The mean score for each topic was calculated by dividing the total points that each topic received by the number of committee members voting. The raw scores were reviewed by the committee, and the distribution of the scores provided a natural cutoff at 100 topics. The top 100 topics all received a mean of at least 1.0 points.

TABLE 5-5 Results of the IOM Committee’s Final Vote for Priority Topics, by Quartile

Quartile Mean Score Standard Deviation Range
Low High
1 4.6 1.0 3.5 7.4
2 2.9 0.3 2.5 3.4
3 2.0 0.3 1.5 2.4
4 1.3 0.1 1.0 1.4

mittee felt that this imprecision reduced the reliability of relative rankings. Therefore, the 100 priority topics are presented grouped into quartiles, listed alphabetically by primary area of research.4 The first quartile contains all topics with a mean score between 3.5 and 7.4 (see Box 5-1 for a brief recap of how the voting was conducted). The second quartile contains all topics with a mean score between 2.5 and 3.5. The third quartile contains all topics with a mean score between 1.5 and 2.5. The fourth quartile contains all topics with a mean score between 1 and 1.5. Refer to Table 5-5 to see the variability and ranges of the committee’s votes across quartile. Table 5-6 displays the 100 priority topics by quartile. The medical terminology used in the list of priorities is defined in Appendix E.

_______________________

4 Note that 55 of the 155 nominated recommendations that appeared on the final ballot did not score high enough to be included in the final list. These 55 items are not represented in the quartiles.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

TABLE 5-6 Final List of Priority Topics, by Quartile Ratings

*display within quartile does not indicate priority rank—topics are listed alphabetically by primary research area

First Quartile
(listed alphabetically by primary research area)

CAD

Compare the effectiveness of treatment strategies for atrial fibrillation including surgery, catheter ablation, and pharmacologic treatment.

DIS

Compare the effectiveness of the different treatments (e.g., assistive listening devices, cochlear implants, electric-acoustic devices, habilitation and rehabilitation methods [auditory/oral, sign language, and total communication]) for hearing loss in children and adults, especially individuals with diverse cultural, language, medical, and developmental backgrounds.

ENDO

Compare the effectiveness of primary prevention methods, such as exercise and balance training, versus clinical treatments in preventing falls in older adults at varying degrees of risk.

GI

Compare the effectiveness of upper endoscopy utilization and frequency for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease on morbidity, quality of life, and diagnosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of dissemination and translation techniques to facilitate the use of CER by patients, clinicians, payers, and others.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of comprehensive care coordination programs, such as the medical home, and usual care in managing children and adults with severe chronic disease, especially in populations with known health disparities.

IMUN

Compare the effectiveness of different strategies of introducing biologics into the treatment algorithm for inflammatory diseases, including Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriatic arthritis.

INFD

Compare the effectiveness of various screening, prophylaxis, and treatment interventions in eradicating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in communities, institutions, and hospitals.

INFD

Compare the effectiveness of strategies (e.g., bio-patches, reducing central line entry, chlorhexidine for all line entries, antibiotic impregnated catheters, treating all line entries via a sterile field) for reducing healthcare-associated infections (HAI), including catheter-associated bloodstream infection, ventilator associated pneumonia, and surgical site infections in children and adults.

KUT

Compare the effectiveness of management strategies for localized prostate cancer (e.g., active surveillance, radical prostatectomy [conventional, robotic, and laparoscopic], and radiotherapy [conformal, brachytherapy, proton-beam, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy]) on survival, recurrence, side effects, quality of life, and costs.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

MS

Establish a prospective registry to compare the effectiveness of treatment strategies for low back pain without neurological deficit or spinal deformity.

NEURO

Compare the effectiveness and costs of alternative detection and management strategies (e.g., pharmacologic treatment, social/family support, combined pharmacologic and social/family support) for dementia in community-dwelling individuals and their caregivers.

NEURO

Compare the effectiveness of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments in managing behavioral disorders in people with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias in home and institutional settings.

NUTR

Compare the effectiveness of school-based interventions involving meal programs, vending machines, and physical education, at different levels of intensity, in preventing and treating overweight and obesity in children and adolescents.

NUTR

Compare the effectiveness of various strategies (e.g., clinical interventions, selected social interventions [such as improving the built environment in communities and making healthy foods more available], combined clinical and social interventions) to prevent obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease in at-risk populations such as the urban poor and American Indians.

ONC

Compare the effectiveness of management strategies for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

ONC

Compare the effectiveness of imaging technologies in diagnosing, staging, and monitoring patients with cancer including positron emission tomography (PET), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT).

ONC

Compare the effectiveness of genetic and biomarker testing and usual care in preventing and treating breast, colorectal, prostate, lung, and ovarian cancer, and possibly other clinical conditions for which promising biomarkers exist.

ORAL

Compare the effectiveness of the various delivery models (e.g., primary care, dental offices, schools, mobile vans) in preventing dental caries in children.

PEDS

Compare the effectiveness of various primary care treatment strategies (e.g., symptom management, cognitive behavior therapy, biofeedback, social skills, educator/teacher training, parent training, pharmacologic treatment) for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children.

PSYCH

Compare the effectiveness of wraparound home and community-based services and residential treatment in managing serious emotional disorders in children and adults.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

RED

Compare the effectiveness of interventions (e.g., community-based multi-level interventions, simple health education, usual care) to reduce health disparities in cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, musculoskeletal diseases, and birth outcomes.

RED

Compare the effectiveness of literacy-sensitive disease management programs and usual care in reducing disparities in children and adults with low literacy and chronic disease (e.g., heart disease).

WH

Compare the effectiveness of clinical interventions (e.g., prenatal care, nutritional counseling, smoking cessation, substance abuse treatment, combinations of these interventions) to reduce incidences of infant mortality, pre-term births, and low birth weights, especially among African American women.

WH

Compare the effectiveness of innovative strategies for preventing unintended pregnancies (e.g., over-the-counter access to oral contraceptives or other hormonal methods, expanding access to long-acting methods for young women, providing free contraceptive methods at public clinics, pharmacies, or other locations).

Second Quartile
(listed alphabetically by primary research area)

BDEV

Compare the effectiveness of therapeutic strategies (e.g., behavioral or pharmacologic interventions, the combination of the two) for different autism spectrum disorders (ASD) at different levels of severity and stages of intervention.

BDEV

Compare the effectiveness of the co-location model (psychological and primary care practitioners practicing together) and usual care (identification by primary care practitioner and referral to community-based mental health services) in identifying and treating social-emotional and developmental disorders in children ages 0-3.

BDEV

Compare the effectiveness of diverse models of comprehensive support services for infants and their families following discharge from a neonatal intensive care unit.

CAD

Compare the effectiveness of treatment strategies for vascular claudication (e.g., medical optimization, smoking cessation, exercise, catheter-based treatment, open surgical bypass).

CAM

Compare the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions (e.g., yoga, meditation, deep breathing training) and usual care in treating anxiety and depression, pain, cardiovascular risk factors, and chronic diseases.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

ENDO

Compare the long-term effectiveness of weight-bearing exercise and bisphosphonates in preventing hip and vertebral fractures in older women with osteopenia and/or osteoporosis.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of shared decision making and usual care on decision outcomes (treatment choice, knowledge, treatment-preference concordance, and decisional conflict) in children and adults with chronic disease such as stable angina and asthma.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of strategies for enhancing patients’ adherence to medication regimens.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of patient decision support tools on informing diagnostic and treatment decisions (e.g., treatment choice, knowledge acquisition, treatment-preference concordance, decisional conflict) for elective surgical and nonsurgical procedures—especially in patients with limited English-language proficiency, limited education, hearing or visual impairments, or mental health problems.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of robotic assistance surgery and conventional surgery for common operations, such as prostatectomies.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness (including resource utilization, workforce needs, net health care expenditures, and requirements for large-scale deployment) of new remote patient monitoring and management technologies (e.g., telemedicine, Internet, remote sensing) and usual care in managing chronic disease, especially in rural settings.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of diverse models of transition support services for adults with complex health care needs (e.g., the elderly, homeless, mentally challenged) after hospital discharge.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of accountable care systems and usual care on costs, processes of care, and outcomes for geographically defined populations of patients with one or more chronic diseases.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of different residential settings (e.g., home care, nursing home, group home) in caring for elderly patients with functional impairments.

KUT

Compare the effectiveness (including survival, hospitalization, quality of life, and costs) of renal replacement therapies (e.g., daily home hemodialysis, intermittent home hemodialysis, conventional in-center dialysis, continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis, renal transplantation) for patients of different ages, races, and ethnicities.

MS

Compare the effectiveness of treatment strategies (e.g., artificial cervical discs, spinal fusion, pharmacologic treatment with physical therapy) for cervical disc and neck pain.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

ONC

Compare the effectiveness of film-screen or digital mammography alone and mammography plus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in community practice-based screening for breast cancer in high-risk women of different ages, risk factors, and race or ethnicity.

ONC

Compare the effectiveness of new screening technologies (such as fecal immunochemical tests and computed tomography [CT] colonography) and usual care (fecal occult blood tests and colonoscopy) in preventing colorectal cancer.

PELC

Compare the effectiveness of coordinated care (supported by reimbursement innovations) and usual care in long-term and end-of-life care of the elderly.

PSYCH

Compare the effectiveness of pharmacologic treatment and behavioral interventions in managing major depressive disorders in adolescents and adults in diverse treatment settings.

RD

Compare the effectiveness of an integrated approach (combining counseling, environmental mitigation, chronic disease management, and legal assistance) with a non-integrated episodic care model in managing asthma in children.

SKIN

Compare the effectiveness (including effects on quality of life) of treatment strategies (e.g., topical steroids, ultraviolet light, methotrexate, biologic response modifiers) for psoriasis.

TEMC

Compare the effectiveness of treatment strategies (e.g., cognitive behavioral individual therapy, generic individual therapy, comprehensive and intensive treatment) for post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from diverse sources of trauma.

WH

Compare the effectiveness and outcomes of care with obstetric ultrasound studies and care without the use of ultrasound in normal pregnancies.

WH

Compare the effectiveness of birthing care in freestanding birth centers and usual care of childbearing women at low and moderate risk.

Third Quartile
(listed alphabetically by primary research area)

ADDO

Compare the effectiveness of different opioid and non-opioid pain relievers, in different doses and durations, in avoiding unintentional overdose and substance dependence among subjects with acute and non-cancer chronic pain.

CAD

Compare the effectiveness of aggressive medical management and percutaneous coronary interventions in treating stable coronary disease for patients of different ages and with different comorbidities.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

CAD

Compare the effectiveness of innovative treatment strategies (e.g., cardiac resynchronization, remote physiologic monitoring, pharmacologic treatment, novel agents such as CRF-2 receptors) for congestive heart failure.

CAD

Compare the effectiveness of traditional risk stratification for coronary heart disease (CHD) and noninvasive imaging (using coronary artery calcium, carotid intima media thickness, and other approaches) on CHD outcomes.

CAD

Compare the effectiveness of different treatment strategies (e.g., modifying target levels for glucose, lipid, or blood pressure) in reducing cardiovascular complications in newly diagnosed adolescents and adults with type 2 diabetes.

CAM

Compare the effectiveness of acupuncture for various indications using a cluster randomized trial.

CAM

Compare the effectiveness of dietary supplements (nutriceuticals) and usual care in the treatment of selected high-prevalence conditions.

EENT

Compare the effectiveness of different treatment options (e.g., laser therapy, intravitreal steroids, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [anti-VEGF]) for diabetic retinopathy, macular degeneration, and retinal vein occlusion.

EENT

Compare the effectiveness of treatment strategies for primary open-angle glaucoma (e.g., initial laser surgery, new surgical techniques, new medical treatments) particularly in minority populations to assess clinical and patient-reported outcomes.

ENDO

Compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conventional medical management of type 2 diabetes in adolescents and adults, versus conventional therapy plus intensive educational programs or programs incorporating support groups and educational resources.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of alternative redesign strategies—using decision support capabilities, electronic health records, and personal health records—for increasing health professionals’ compliance with evidence-based guidelines and patients’ adherence to guideline-based regimens for chronic disease care.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of adding information about new biomarkers (including genetic information) with standard care in motivating behavior change and improving clinical outcomes.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of different quality improvement strategies in disease prevention, acute care, chronic disease care, and rehabilitation services for diverse populations of children and adults.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of formulary management practices and usual practices in controlling hospital expenditures for products other than drugs including medical devices (surgical hemostatic products, radiocontrast, interventional cardiology devices, and others).

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of different benefit design, utilization management, and cost-sharing strategies in improving health care access and quality in patients with chronic diseases (e.g., cancer, diabetes, heart disease).

INFD

Compare the effectiveness of HIV screening strategies based on recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations and traditional screening in primary care settings with significant prevention counseling.

MS

Establish a prospective registry to compare the effectiveness of surgical and nonsurgical strategies for treating cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) in patients with different characteristics to delineate predictors of improved outcomes.

NEURO

Compare the effectiveness of traditional and newer imaging modalities (e.g., routine imaging, magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], computed tomography [CT], positron emission tomography [PET]) when ordered for neurological and orthopedic indications by primary care practitioners, emergency department physicians, and specialists.

NEURO

Compare the effectiveness of comprehensive, coordinated care and usual care on objective measures of clinical status, patient-reported outcomes, and costs of care for people with multiple sclerosis.

NUTR

Compare the effectiveness of treatment strategies for obesity (e.g., bariatric surgery, behavioral interventions, pharmacologic treatment) on the resolution of obesity-related outcomes such as diabetes, hypertension, and musculoskeletal disorders.

ORAL

Compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical care and a medical model of prevention and care in managing periodontal disease to increase tooth longevity and reduce systemic secondary effects in other organ systems.

PSYCH

Compare the effectiveness of atypical antipsychotic drug therapy and conventional pharmacologic treatment for Food and Drug Administration-approved indications and compendia-referenced off-label indications using large datasets.

PSYCH

Compare the effectiveness of management strategies (e.g., inpatient psychiatric hospitalization, extended observation, partial hospitalization, intensive outpatient care) for adolescents and adults following a suicide attempt.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

RED

Compare the effectiveness of different strategies to engage and retain patients in care and to delineate barriers to care, especially for members of populations that experience health disparities.

SKIN

Compare the effectiveness of topical treatments (e.g., antibiotics, platelet-derived growth factor) and systemic therapies (e.g., negative pressure wound therapy, hyperbaric oxygen) in managing chronic lower extremity wounds.

Fourth Quartile
(listed alphabetically by primary research area)

ADDO

Compare the effectiveness of smoking cessation strategies (e.g., medication, individual or quitline counseling, combinations of these) in smokers from understudied populations such as minorities, individuals with mental illness, and adolescents.

CAD

Compare the effectiveness of computed tomography (CT) angiography and conventional angiography in assessing coronary stenosis in patients at moderate pretest risk of coronary artery disease.

CAD

Compare the effectiveness of anticoagulant therapies (e.g., low-intensity warfarin, aspirin, injectable anticoagulants) for patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty surgery.

DIS

Compare the effectiveness of focused intense periodic therapy and usual weekly therapy in managing cerebral palsy in children.

ENDO

Compare the effectiveness of different disease management strategies in improving the adherence to and value of pharmacologic treatments for the elderly.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of care coordination with and without clinical decision supports (e.g., electronic health records) in producing good health outcomes in chronically ill patients, including children with special healthcare needs.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of coordinated, physician-led, interdisciplinary care provided in the patient’s residence and usual care in managing advanced chronic disease in community-dwelling patients with significant functional impairments.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of minimally invasive abdominal surgery and open surgical procedures on post-operative infections, pain management, and recuperative requirements.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of traditional behavioral interventions versus economic incentives in motivating behavior changes (e.g., weight loss, smoking cessation, avoiding alcohol and substance abuse) in children and adults.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of diagnostic imaging performed by non-radiologists and radiologists.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of different techniques (e.g., audio, visual, written) for informing patients about proposed treatments during the process of informed consent.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of different disease management strategies for activating patients with chronic disease.

HCDS

Compare the effectiveness of different delivery models (e.g., home blood pressure monitors, utilization of pharmacists or other allied health providers) for controlling hypertension, especially in racial minorities.

INFD

Compare the effectiveness of alternative clinical management strategies for hepatitis C, including alternative duration of therapy for patients based on viral genomic profile and patient risk factors (e.g., behavior-related risk factors).

MS

Compare the effectiveness of different treatment strategies in the prevention of progression and disability from osteoarthritis.

MS

Compare the effectiveness (e.g., pain relief, functional outcomes) of different surgical strategies for symptomatic cervical disc herniation in patients for whom appropriate nonsurgical care has failed.

NEURO

Compare the effectiveness of different treatment strategies on the frequency and lost productivity in people with chronic, frequent migraine headaches.

NEURO

Compare the effectiveness of monotherapy and polytherapy (i.e., use of two or more drugs) on seizure frequency, adverse events, quality of life, and cost in patients with intractable epilepsy.

ONC

Compare the effectiveness of surgical resection, observation, or ablative techniques on disease-free and overall survival, tumor recurrence, quality of life, and toxicity in patients with liver metastases.

PELC

Compare the effectiveness of hospital-based palliative care and usual care on patient-reported outcomes and cost.

PSYCH

Compare the effectiveness of different treatment approaches (e.g., integrating mental health care and primary care, improving consumer self-care, a combination of integration and self-care) in avoiding early mortality and comorbidity among people with serious and persistent mental illness.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

PSYCH

Compare the effectiveness of traditional training of primary care physicians in primary care mental health and co-location systems of primary care and mental health care on outcomes including depression, anxiety, physical symptoms, physical disability, prescription substance use, mental and physical function, satisfaction with the provider, and cost.

PSYCH

Compare the effectiveness of different treatment strategies (e.g., psychotherapy, antidepressants, combination treatment with case management) for depression after myocardial infarction on medication adherence, cardiovascular events, hospitalization, and death.

SKIN

Compare the effectiveness of different long-term treatments for acne.

WH

Compare the effectiveness of different strategies for promoting breastfeeding among low-income African American women.

NOTE: ADDO = Alcoholism, Drug Dependency, and Overdose; BDEV = Birth and Developmental Disorders; CAD = Cardiovascular and Peripheral Vascular Disease; CAM = Complementary and Alternative Medicine; DIS = Functional Limitations and Disabilities; EENT = Eyes, Ears, Nose, and Throat Disorders; ENDO = Endocrinology and Metabolism Disorders and Geriatrics; GI = Gastrointestinal System Disorders; HCDS = Health Care Delivery Systems; IMUN = Immune System, Connective Tissue, and Joint Disorders; INFD = Infectious Diseases Liver and Biliary Tract Disorders; KUT = Kidney and Urinary Tract Disorders; MS = Musculoskeletal Disorders; NEURO = Neurologic Disorders; NUTR = Nutrition (including obesity); ONC = Oncology and Hematology; ORAL = Oral Health; PEDS = Pediatrics; PELC = Palliative and End-of-Life Care; PSYCH = Psychiatric Disorders; RD = Respiratory Disease; RED = Racial and Ethnic Disparities; SKIN = Skin Disorders; TEMC = Trauma, Emergency Medicine, and Critical Care Medicine; WH = Women’s Health.

DISCUSSION OF THE PRIORITY TOPICS BY RESEARCH AREA

The following discussion presents the items contained in the final list of 100 priority topics, grouped by primary research area. The importance of the research area is explained, with reference to the criteria used by the IOM committee members in voting.

For voting purposes, each nominated priority topic was assigned to a primary research area.5 The remainder of this section presents the priority topics by research areas. The areas containing the most topics are presented first.

_______________________

5 As discussed in Chapter 4, the committee’s subgroup reviewed all of the nominated priorities and assigned each topic to a primary research area.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

Health Care Delivery Systems6

Almost one-fourth of the committee’s recommended priority topics are classified primarily in the health care delivery system (HCDS) research area. This is a broad category that includes topics related to dissemination of CER study results; patient decision making, health behavior and care management, comparing settings of care, and utilization of surgical, radiological, and medical procedures (Table 5-7). Different dissemination techniques are proposed for study (HCDS-A) to ensure that interventions are widely adopted in practice once CER studies prove them effective. Five priority topics focus on patient decision making (HCDS-B–F) involving decision support tools and other mechanisms, such as electronic health records, to help patients make informed choices about their care. Health behaviors, such as smoking, are the subject of four topics (HCDS-G–J), which involve disease management (a comprehensive approach to caring for patients with chronic diseases), clinical guidelines (as followed by both clinicians and patients), information about genetic biomarkers and their impact on patient choice of diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, and economic incentives to adopt a healthier lifestyle. Healthcare management (HCDS-K–P) specifically addresses quality improvement, post-hospital transition support, hospital formularies for medical devices, comprehensive care coordination, population-based “accountable care,” and certain health system strategies (such as revising health insurance policies). Settings of care topics (HCDS-Q–S) address remote patient monitoring, care that is not structured around office visits to physicians, including community and home-based care for elderly and chronic disease patients. Certain procedures included in the health care delivery system research area (HCDS-T–W) address robotic surgery, minimally invasive surgery, scanning and imaging performed by physicians other than radiologists, and methods of controlling hypertension.

Other groups have set a high priority on studying healthcare delivery topics. Several aspects of this expansive topic were identified as important by Healthy People 2010, the National Quality Forum, and the Cochrane Collaboration (Doyle et al., 2005; HHS, 2000; NPP, 2008). These aspects include access to quality health services, education and community-based programs, environmental health, food safety, health communication, medical product safety, occupational safety and health, public health infrastructure, safety and reliability of the health care system, integration and coordination of care, overuse and misuse of care, and organizational capacity.

The large number of recommended topics addressing health care and delivery reflects the dramatic variability of care from region to region, the

_______________________

6 Described in the questionnaire as “Safety and Quality of Health Care.”

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

TABLE 5-7 Health Care Delivery Systems Priority Topics

HCDS-A Compare the effectiveness of dissemination and translation techniques to facilitate the use of CER by patients, clinicians, payers, and others.

HCDS-B

Compare the effectiveness of shared decision making and usual care on decision outcomes (treatment choice, knowledge, treatment-preference concordance, and decisional conflict) in children and adults with chronic disease such as stable angina and asthma.

HCDS-C

Compare the effectiveness of patient decision support tools on informing diagnostic and treatment decisions (e.g., treatment choice, knowledge acquisition, treatment-preference concordance, decisional conflict) for elective surgical and nonsurgical procedures—especially in patients with limited English-language proficiency, limited education, hearing or visual impairments, or mental health problems.

HCDS-D

Compare the effectiveness of care coordination with and without clinical decision supports (e.g., electronic health records) in producing good health outcomes in chronically ill patients, including children with special health care needs.

HCDS-E

Compare the effectiveness of different techniques (e.g., audio, visual, written) for informing patients about proposed treatments during the process of informed consent.

HCDS-F

Compare the effectiveness of strategies for enhancing patients’ adherence to medication regimens.

HCDS-G

Compare the effectiveness of different disease management strategies for activating patients with chronic disease.

HCDS-H

Compare the effectiveness of alternative redesign strategies—using decision support capabilities, electronic health records, and personal health records—for increasing health professionals’ compliance with evidence-based guidelines and patients’ adherence to guideline-based regimens for chronic disease care.

HCDS-I

Compare the effectiveness of adding information about new biomarkers (including genetic information) with standard care in motivating behavior change and improving clinical outcomes.

HCDS-J

Compare the effectiveness of traditional behavioral interventions versus economic incentives in motivating behavior changes (e.g., weight loss, smoking cessation, avoiding alcohol and substance abuse) in children and adults.

HCDS-K

Compare the effectiveness of different quality improvement strategies in disease prevention, acute care, chronic disease care, and rehabilitation services for diverse populations of children and adults.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

HCDS-L

Compare the effectiveness of diverse models of transition support services for adults with complex health care needs (e.g., the elderly, homeless, mentally challenged) after hospital discharge.

HCDS-M

Compare the effectiveness of formulary management practices and usual practices in controlling hospital expenditures for products other than drugs including medical devices (surgical hemostatic products, radiocontrast, interventional cardiology devices, and others).

HCDS-N

Compare the effectiveness of comprehensive care coordination programs, such as the medical home, and usual care in managing children and adults with severe chronic disease, especially in populations with known health disparities.

HCDS-O

Compare the effectiveness of accountable care systems and usual care on costs, processes of care, and outcomes for geographically defined populations of patients with one or more chronic diseases.

HCDS-P

Compare the effectiveness of different benefit design, utilization management, and cost-sharing strategies in improving health care access and quality in patients with chronic diseases (e.g., cancer, diabetes, heart disease).

HCDS-Q

Compare the effectiveness (including resource utilization, workforce needs, net health care expenditures, and requirements for large-scale deployment) of new remote patient monitoring and management technologies (e.g., telemedicine, Internet, remote sensing) and usual care in managing chronic disease, especially in rural settings.

HCDS-R

Compare the effectiveness of different residential settings (e.g., home care, nursing home, group home) in caring for elderly patients with functional impairments.

HCDS-S

Compare the effectiveness of coordinated, physician-led, interdisciplinary care provided in the patient’s residence and usual care in managing advanced chronic disease in community-dwelling patients with significant functional impairments.

HCDS-T

Compare the effectiveness of robotic assistance surgery and conventional surgery for common operations, such as prostatectomies.

HCDS-U

Compare the effectiveness of minimally invasive abdominal surgery and open surgical procedures on post-operative infections, pain management, and recuperative requirements.

HCDS-V

Compare the effectiveness of diagnostic imaging performed by non-radiologists and radiologists.

HCDS-W

Compare the effectiveness of different delivery models (e.g., home blood pressure monitors, utilization of pharmacists or other allied health providers) for controlling hypertension, especially in racial minorities.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

lack of clarity of what constitutes best practice, and the desire to identify optimal systems for providing health care.

Cardiovascular and Peripheral Vascular Disease

Cardiovascular and Peripheral Vascular disease was the second-ranked topic category among the committee’s top 100 priority topics. Diseases of the heart were ranked as the leading cause of death in 2005 according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Vital Statistics Reports (Kung et al., 2008). Such diseases are associated with multiple comorbidities that are becoming increasingly prevalent, such as diabetes and obesity. The final priority list had eight topics (Table 5-8) dealing with ischemic heart disease (CAD-A–D) and heart failure (CAD-E), which are among the leading causes of death in all age groups (Kung et al., 2008) together with cardiac arrhythmias (CAD-F), which are among the most variably treated conditions (Wennberg, 2009). In addition, the AHRQ Effective Health Care program, Healthy People 2010, and the Cochrane Collaboration rank cardiovascular disease among the highest national priorities for health (Doyle et al., 2005; HHS, 2000; Whitlock et al., 2009). The committee’s list also had two topics that focused on the treatment and management of peripheral vascular disorders (CAD-G–H).

Psychiatric Disorders

Across the nation, the prevalence of mental health disorders is high, and the cost of treating such disorders is substantial. The committee recommended that CER address several important psychiatric disorders (Table 5-9). AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program, Healthy People 2010, and the Cochrane Collaboration agree that mental health disorders are a priority research area for the nation (Doyle et al., 2005; HHS, 2000; Whitlock et al., 2009). Three topics address various strategies for managing and treating mental health disorders (ranked among the most prevalent, the most costly, and the leading causes of morbidity across all age groups) (AHRQ, 2009a,c; Kung et al., 2008) by specifically studying location of care, provider training, and various pharmacologic treatments (PSYCH-A–C). Depression contributes to suicidal ideation and suicide and is one of the leading causes of mortality across all age groups (Kung et al., 2008). The final list includes two topics addressing depression (PSYCH-D–E), and two that address early mortality (PSYCH-F) and suicide (PSYCH-G).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

TABLE 5-8 Cardiovascular and Peripheral Vascular Diseases Priority Topics

CAD-A Compare the effectiveness of aggressive medical management and percutaneous coronary interventions in treating stable coronary disease for patients of different ages and with different comorbidities.

CAD-B

Compare the effectiveness of traditional risk stratification for coronary heart disease (CHD) and noninvasive imaging (using coronary artery calcium, carotid intima media thickness, and other approaches) on CHD outcomes.

CAD-C

Compare the effectiveness of different treatment strategies (e.g., modifying target levels for glucose, lipid, or blood pressure) in reducing cardiovascular complications in newly diagnosed adolescents and adults with type 2 diabetes.

CAD-D

Compare the effectiveness of computed tomography (CT) angiography and conventional angiography in assessing coronary stenosis in patients at moderate pretest risk of coronary artery disease.

CAD-E

Compare the effectiveness of innovative treatment strategies (e.g., cardiac resynchronization, remote physiologic monitoring, pharmacologic treatment, novel agents such as CRF-2 receptors) for congestive heart failure.

CAD-F

Compare the effectiveness of treatment strategies for atrial fibrillation including surgery, catheter ablation, and pharmacologic treatment.

CAD-G

Compare the effectiveness of treatment strategies for vascular claudication (e.g., medical optimization, smoking cessation, exercise, catheter-based treatment, open surgical bypass).

CAD-H

Compare the effectiveness of anticoagulant therapies (e.g., low-intensity warfarin, aspirin, injectable anticoagulants) for patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty surgery.

Neurologic Disorders

The final priority list includes six topics in the area of neurologic disorders (Table 5-10). These address imaging used for diagnosing neurologic conditions (NEURO-A), treatment of headaches (NEURO-B), multiple sclerosis (NEURO-C), epilepsy (NEURO-D), and the detection, treatment, and management of dementia (NEURO-E) and Alzheimer’s disease (NEURO-F). Epilepsy is one of the most costly disorders affecting adolescents (AHRQ, 2009a), while dementias disproportionately affect the elderly, and are considered national priorities by the AHRQ Effective Health Care Program (Whitlock et al., 2009).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

TABLE 5-9 Psychiatric Disorders Priority Topics

PSYCH-A Compare the effectiveness of wraparound home and community-based services and residential treatment in managing serious emotional disorders in children and adults.

PSYCH-B

Compare the effectiveness of atypical antipsychotic drug therapy and conventional pharmacologic treatment for Food and Drug Administration-approved indications and compendia-referenced off-label indications using large datasets.

PSYCH-C

Compare the effectiveness of traditional training of primary care physicians in primary care mental health and co-location systems of primary care and mental health care on outcomes including depression, anxiety, physical symptoms, physical disability, prescription substance use, mental and physical function, satisfaction with the provider, and cost.

PSYCH-D

Compare the effectiveness of pharmacologic treatment and behavioral interventions in managing major depressive disorders in adolescents and adults in diverse treatment settings.

PSYCH-E

Compare the effectiveness of different treatment strategies (e.g., psychotherapy, antidepressants, combination treatment with case management) for depression after myocardial infarction on medication adherence, cardiovascular events, hospitalization, and death.

PSYCH-F

Compare the effectiveness of different treatment approaches (e.g., integrating mental health care and primary care, improving consumer self-care, a combination of integration and self-care) in avoiding early mortality and comorbidity among people with serious and persistent mental illness.

PSYCH-G

Compare the effectiveness of management strategies (e.g., inpatient psychiatric hospitalization, extended observation, partial hospitalization, intensive outpatient care) for adolescents and adults following a suicide attempt.

Oncology and Hematology

Cancer is a leading cause of death and among the most costly conditions to treat (AHRQ, 2009a; Kung et al., 2008). Cancer is also listed as a national priority by the AHRQ Effective Health Care Program and Healthy People 2010 (HHS, 2000; Whitlock et al., 2009). The final priority list includes six topics in this research area (Table 5-11). These include two topics involving screening technologies for colorectal and breast cancer (ONC-A–B). Breast cancer is among the most variably treated diseases, due in part to the large number of subtypes of breast cancer (Wennberg, 2009). One topic specifically addresses strategies for managing one of those

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

TABLE 5-10 Neurologic Disorders Priority Topics

NEURO-A Compare the effectiveness of traditional and newer imaging modalities (e.g., routine imaging, magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], computed tomography [CT], positron emission tomography [PET]) when ordered for neurological and orthopedic indications by primary care practitioners, emergency department physicians, and specialists.

NEURO-B

Compare the effectiveness of different treatment strategies on the frequency and lost productivity in people with chronic, frequent migraine headaches.

NEURO-C

Compare the effectiveness of comprehensive, coordinated care and usual care on objective measures of clinical status, patient-reported outcomes, and costs of care for people with multiple sclerosis.

NEURO-D

Compare the effectiveness of monotherapy and polytherapy (i.e., use of two or more drugs) on seizure frequency, adverse events, quality of life, and cost in patients with intractable epilepsy.

NEURO-E

Compare the effectiveness and costs of alternative detection and management strategies (e.g., pharmacologic treatment, social/family support, combined pharmacologic and social/family support) for dementia in community-dwelling individuals and their caregivers.

NEURO-F

Compare the effectiveness of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments in managing behavioral disorders in people with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias in home and institutional settings.

subtypes, ductal carcinoma in situ (ONC-C). The topics also address the use of imaging technologies for diagnosing, staging, and monitoring all cancers (ONC-D), the use of biomarker analysis in risk assessment and treatment strategies for common cancers (ONC-E), and comparing treatment strategies for liver metastases (ONC-F).

Women’s Health

Three of the five priority topics in the area of women’s health emphasize conditions of particular importance among minority and underserved populations (Table 5-12). One topic addresses the prevention of unplanned pregnancies (WH-A), focusing on the effectiveness of strategies to expand access to care and systems of health care delivery. One topic focuses on alternative interventions to ensure healthy pregnancies and manage risky pregnancies in minority populations, including behavioral interventions to reduce infant mortality, preterm birth, and low birth weight (WH-B). One topic examines the optimal use of ultrasound during pregnancy (WH-C). The use of ultrasound scanning throughout gestation in both normal and

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

TABLE 5-11 Oncology and Hematology Priority Topics

ONC-A Compare the effectiveness of film-screen or digital mammography alone and mammography plus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in community practice-based screening for breast cancer in high-risk women of different ages, risk factors, and race or ethnicity.

ONC-B

Compare the effectiveness of new screening technologies (such as fecal immunochemical tests and computed tomography [CT] colonography) and usual care (fecal occult blood tests and colonoscopy) in preventing colorectal cancer.

ONC-C

Compare the effectiveness of management strategies for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

ONC-D

Compare the effectiveness of imaging technologies in diagnosing, staging, and monitoring patients with cancer including positron emission tomography (PET), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT).

ONC-E

Compare the effectiveness of genetic and biomarker testing and usual care in preventing and treating breast, colorectal, prostate, lung, and ovarian cancer, and possibly other clinical conditions for which promising biomarkers exist.

ONC-F

Compare the effectiveness of surgical resection, observation, or ablative techniques on disease-free and overall survival, tumor recurrence, quality of life, and toxicity in patients with liver metastases.

TABLE 5-12 Women’s Health Priority Topics

WH-A Compare the effectiveness of innovative strategies for preventing unintended pregnancies (e.g., over-the-counter access to oral contraceptives or other hormonal methods, expanding access to long-acting methods for young women, providing free contraceptive methods at public clinics, pharmacies, or other locations).

WH-B

Compare the effectiveness of clinical interventions (e.g., prenatal care, nutritional counseling, smoking cessation, substance abuse treatment, combinations of these interventions) to reduce incidences of infant mortality, pre-term births, and low birth weights, especially among African American women.

WH-C

Compare the effectiveness and outcomes of care with obstetric ultrasound studies and care without the use of ultrasound in normal pregnancies.

WH-D

Compare the effectiveness of birthing care in freestanding birth centers and usual care of childbearing women at low and moderate risk.

WH-E

Compare the effectiveness of different strategies for promoting breastfeeding among low-income African American women.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

high-risk pregnancies is highly variable, and it is not yet known whether frequency of use affects pregnancy outcomes or safety. One topic addresses the impact of birthing location on outcomes (WH-D) and, finally, the committee recommended examination of programs to promote breastfeeding in African American women (WH-E). Topics related to metabolic bone disease and cardiovascular disease as they affect women are discussed within those specific research areas.

Musculoskeletal Disorders

Although musculoskeletal disorders produce a very broad range of health problems, the committee’s topics focused on two primary disorders: (1) neck and back pain, and (2) osteoarthritis, both considered to be priorities in Healthy People 2010 (HHS, 2000). The committee recommended four priorities focusing on back problems (Table 5-13), which are listed among the most prevalent, most costly, most variable, and most morbid conditions (AHRQ, 2009a,b,c; Wennberg, 2009). Two of these topics focus on management and treatment strategies for low back pain and cervical spondylotic myelopathy (compression of the spinal cord) (MS-A–B), including identification of patient-specific biomarkers to help predict outcome and inform treatment strategies. The others focus on surgical and nonsurgical treatment strategies for cervical disc and neck pain (MS-C–D). The remaining topic in this research area addresses interventions to prevent disability and progression of osteoarthritis (MS-E).

TABLE 5-13 Musculoskeletal Disorders Priority Topics

MS-A Establish a prospective registry to compare the effectiveness of treatment strategies for low back pain without neurological deficit or spinal deformity.

MS-B

Establish a prospective registry to compare the effectiveness of surgical and nonsurgical strategies for treating cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) in patients with different characteristics to delineate predictors of improved outcomes.

MS-C

Compare the effectiveness of treatment strategies (e.g., artificial cervical discs, spinal fusion, pharmacologic treatment with physical therapy) for cervical disc and neck pain.

MS-D

Compare the effectiveness (e.g., pain relief, functional outcomes) of different surgical strategies for symptomatic cervical disc herniation in patients for whom appropriate nonsurgical care has failed.

MS-E

Compare the effectiveness of different treatment strategies in the prevention of progression and disability from osteoarthritis.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

Infectious Diseases and Liver and Biliary Tract Disorders

Infectious diseases carry risks for infected patients and also constitute a significant public threat because they can be transmitted from person to person through a variety of mechanisms. Once detected, effective treatments can be applied and transmission of many infectious diseases can be mitigated. The committee’s topics focus on screening for detection, interventions to reduce transmission, and clinical management of chronic infectious diseases (Table 5-14). The specific diseases highlighted by the committee’s topics include methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (INFD-A), hepatitis C (INFD-B), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (INFD-C), and more generally hospital acquired infections (HAI) (INFD-D). Hospital acquired infections can be deadly if not treated properly—in fact, septicemia and pneumonia, two diseases commonly transmitted in hospital settings are among the most variably treated conditions according to the Dartmouth Atlas (Wennberg, 2009). Finding effective methods to reduce such infections is critically important to the health of the nation. Chronic infections with HIV and hepatitis C can now be treated so that people live decades. However, identifying optimal treatment strategies, particularly in African American populations and at-risk populations, such as intravenous drug users, require more research. Both infectious diseases generally, and HIV/AIDS in particular, are listed by AHRQ’s Effective

TABLE 5-14 Infectious Disease and Liver and Biliary Tract Disorder Priority Topics

INFD-A Compare the effectiveness of various screening, prophylaxis, and treatment interventions in eradicating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in communities, institutions, and hospitals.

INFD-B

Compare the effectiveness of alternative clinical management strategies for hepatitis C, including alternative duration of therapy for patients based on viral genomic profile and patient risk factors (e.g., behavior-related risk factors).

INFD-C

Compare the effectiveness of HIV screening strategies based on recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations and traditional screening in primary care settings with significant prevention counseling.

INFD-D

Compare the effectiveness of strategies (e.g., bio-patches, reducing central line entry, chlorhexidine for all line entries, antibiotic impregnated catheters, treating all line entries via a sterile field) for reducing healthcare-associated infections (HAI), including catheter-associated bloodstream infection, ventilator associated pneumonia, and surgical site infections in children and adults.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

Health Care Program and Healthy People 2010 as conditions of nationa importance (HHS, 2000; Whitlock et al., 2009).

Endocrinology and Metabolism Disorders and Geriatrics

Diabetes, which ranks among the most prevalent and most costly diseases throughout the nation, is associated with multiple comorbidities including heart disease, stroke, and obesity (AHRQ, 2009a,c). In addition, it is among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality (AHRQ, 2009b; Kung et al., 2008). Determining the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of alternative strategies to treat type 2 diabetes in adolescents and adults has the potential to dramatically improve health and reduce healthcare costs across the country. As such, the committee recommended it as a priority (ENDO-A), as did AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program and Healthy People 2010 (AHRQ Effective Health Care Program, 2009; HHS, 2000) (Table 5-15).

As the baby boomer generation continues to age, it will be important to determine the effectiveness of strategies to reduce hip and vertebral fractures in patients both with and without osteopenia and osteoporosis. The committee concluded that falls, which are a contributing factor to fractures, should also be among its list of national priorities (ENDO-B–C).

Many older Americans take multiple medications on a routine basis. The committee recommends performing studies to evaluate the impact of

TABLE 5-15 Endocrinology and Metabolism Disorders and Geriatric Priority Topics

ENDO-A Compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conventional medical management of type 2 diabetes in adolescents and adults, versus conventional therapy plus intensive educational programs or programs incorporating support groups and educational resources.

ENDO-B

Compare the long-term effectiveness of weight-bearing exercise and bisphosphonates in preventing hip and vertebral fractures in older women with osteopenia and/or osteoporosis.

ENDO-C

Compare the effectiveness of primary prevention methods, such as exercise and balance training, versus clinical treatments in preventing falls in older adults at varying degrees of risk.

ENDO-D

Compare the effectiveness of different disease management strategies in improving the adherence to and value of pharmacologic treatments for the elderly.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

disease management strategies on the efficiency and value of pharmacological treatments (ENDO-D). There are multiple other topics that affect the elderly population; these topics are listed according to the specific organ system or disease area to which they pertain.

Birth and Developmental Disorders

The uncertainty surrounding the root causes of social-emotional disorders in infants and toddlers, as well as autism spectrum disorder, has resulted in a lack of effective treatment options for these individuals. As a result, AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program recommended this as a national priority area for CER (Whitlock et al., 2009). The final list includes two priority topics focused on identifying effective treatment strategies for these disorders (BDEV-A–B) (Table 5-16). With the remarkable improvement in survival and attendant costs for premature infants, the impact of support programs on child and family outcomes after a child is discharged from a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (BDEV-C) was felt to be of significant value. For specific topics related to pregnancy, refer to the Women’s Health category.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine

The widespread use of complementary and alternative methodologies (including yoga, meditation, acupuncture, and nutriceuticals [CAM-A–C]) in managing a broad array of disorders (e.g., anxiety and depression, pain, cardiovascular risk factors, chronic diseases, other prevalent conditions)

TABLE 5-16 Birth and Developmental Disorders Priority Topics

BDEV-A Compare the effectiveness of therapeutic strategies (e.g., behavioral or pharmacologic interventions, the combination of the two) for different autism spectrum disorders (ASD) at different levels of severity and stages of intervention.

BDEV-B

Compare the effectiveness of the co-location model (psychological and primary care practitioners practicing together) and usual care (identification by primary care practitioner and referral to community-based mental health services) in identifying and treating social-emotional and developmental disorders in children ages 0-3.

BDEV-C

Compare the effectiveness of diverse models of comprehensive support services for infants and their families following discharge from a neonatal intensive care unit.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

TABLE 5-17 Complementary and Alternative Medicine Priority Topics

CAM-A Compare the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions (e.g., yoga, meditation, deep breathing training) and usual care in treating anxiety and depression, pain, cardiovascular risk factors, and chronic diseases.

CAM-B

Compare the effectiveness of acupuncture for various indications using a cluster randomized trial.

CAM-C

Compare the effectiveness of dietary supplements (nutriceuticals) and usual care in the treatment of selected high-prevalence conditions.

provides the impetus to compare their effectiveness to more conventional approaches to care (Table 5-17).

Nutrition

Obesity is a growing epidemic with medical consequences that extend to multiple chronic conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and arthritis. Within the medical community, there is currently uncertainty regarding effective strategies for preventing and treating obesity. The committee recommended priorities that compare strategies for improving social conditions to reduce obesity (NUTR-A), including various school policies (NUTR-B) (Table 5-18). Both of these priorities include a focus on populations with varying risk rates. Identifying effective methods for treating obese populations could significantly improve health in this country. As such, the committee recommends comparing the effectiveness of surgical procedures, such as bariatric surgery (gastric bypass), behavior modification, and medication (NUTR-C).

Racial and Ethnic Disparities

Disparities in access to care and in clinical outcomes between different populations were of considerable concern for the committee. Some minority populations, such as African Americans, Asian Pacific Islanders, Latinos, and Native Americans, have higher rates of chronic diseases and also experience greater barriers to obtaining care. Together, these factors contribute to creating disparities in health status and clinical outcomes. The committee recommends comparing the effectiveness of several strategies aimed at reducing these disparities, including community-based and multilevel interventions (RED-A), providing literacy sensitive disease management programs (RED-B), and strategies to improve engagement and retention (RED-C) (Table 5-19).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

TABLE 5-18 Nutrition Priority Topics

NUTR-A Compare the effectiveness of various strategies (e.g., clinical interventions, selected social interventions [such as improving the built environment in communities and making healthy foods more available], combined clinical and social interventions) to prevent obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease in at-risk populations such as the urban poor and American Indians.

NUTR-B

Compare the effectiveness of school-based interventions involving meal programs, vending machines, and physical education, at different levels of intensity, in preventing and treating overweight and obesity in children and adolescents.

NUTR-C

Compare the effectiveness of treatment strategies for obesity (e.g., bariatric surgery, behavioral interventions, pharmacologic treatment) on the resolution of obesity-related outcomes such as diabetes, hypertension, and musculoskeletal disorders.

Skin Disorders

Skin disorders across the country are widespread, cause a high degree of morbidity, and are among the most costly disorders in children and adolescents between ages 1 and 17 (AHRQ, 2009a,b,c). The committee’s priorities on skin disorders include chronic conditions such as lower extremity wounds (common complications in patients with diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and paralysis) (SKIN-A), and acne—specifically comparing the long-term safety and effectiveness of alternative treatments (SKIN-B) (Table 5-20). Another topic focused on reducing skin disease and comparing treatments to improve quality of life for chronic psoriatic disease (SKIN-C).

TABLE 5-19 Race and Ethnic Disparities Priority Topics

RED-A Compare the effectiveness of interventions (e.g., community-based multilevel interventions, simple health education, usual care) to reduce health disparities in cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, musculoskeletal diseases, and birth outcomes.

RED-B

Compare the effectiveness of literacy-sensitive disease management programs and usual care in reducing disparities in children and adults with low literacy and chronic disease (e.g., heart disease).

RED-C

Compare the effectiveness of different strategies to engage and retain patients in care and to delineate barriers to care, especially for members of populations that experience health disparities.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

TABLE 5-20 Skin Disorders Priority Topics

SKIN-A Compare the effectiveness of topical treatments (e.g., antibiotics, platelet-derived growth factor) and systemic therapies (e.g., negative pressure wound therapy, hyperbaric oxygen) in managing chronic lower extremity wounds.

SKIN-B

Compare the effectiveness of different long-term treatments for acne.

SKIN-C

Compare the effectiveness (including effects on quality of life) of treatment strategies (e.g., topical steroids, ultraviolet light, methotrexate, biologic response modifiers) for psoriasis.

Alcoholism, Drug Dependency, and Overdose

The harms of tobacco smoking are well known and well documented. Yet, roughly one-fifth of the nation’s population continues to smoke. The committee recommended that a national priority for comparative effectiveness should be to examine alternative smoking cessation strategies in understudied populations such as minorities, individuals with mental illness, and adolescents (ADDO-A) (Table 5-21). The Cochrane Collaboration and Healthy People 2010 also include tobacco use as national priorities (Doyle et al., 2005; HHS, 2000).

The increasing prevalence of abuse of and dependency on pain medications led the committee to recommend an examination of treatment and prescribing practices to reduce substance dependence for patients with non-cancer chronic pain and acute pain (ADDO-B).

Functional Limitations and Disabilities

While many of the committee’s priority topics affect patients with disabilities, the following topics specifically address two populations: (1) the

TABLE 5-21 Alcoholism, Drug Dependency, and Overdose Priority Topics

ADDO-A Compare the effectiveness of smoking cessation strategies (e.g., medication, individual or quitline counseling, combinations of these) in smokers from understudied populations such as minorities, individuals with mental illness, and adolescents.

ADDO-B

Compare the effectiveness of different opioid and non-opioid pain relievers, in different doses and durations, in avoiding unintentional overdose and substance dependence among subjects with acute and non-cancer chronic pain.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

TABLE 5-22 Functional Limitations and Disability Priority Topics

DIS-A Compare the effectiveness of the different treatments (e.g., assistive listening devices, cochlear implants, electric-acoustic devices, habilitation and rehabilitation methods [auditory/oral, sign language, and total communication]) for hearing loss in children and adults, especially individuals with diverse cultural, language, medical, and developmental backgrounds.

DIS-B

Compare the effectiveness of focused intense periodic therapy and usual weekly therapy in managing cerebral palsy in children.

hearing-impaired, and (2) children with cerebral palsy (Table 5-22). The committee recommended one priority focus on treatment strategies for hearing loss among those with diverse cultural/linguistic and medical/developmental backgrounds (DIS-A) and another on usual care compared to focused and intense periodic therapy sessions to manage symptoms related to cerebral palsy (DIS-B).

Eyes, Ears, Nose, and Throat Disorders

The committee included two topics on eye disorders: (1) comparing the effectiveness of alternative treatment strategies for diabetic retinopathy, macular degeneration, and retinal vein occlusion (EENT-A), and (2) comparing strategies for treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma (EENT-B), including a focus on minority populations (Table 5-23).

Kidney and Urinary Tract Disorders

The committee identified prostate cancer and renal replacement therapies as priority areas for comparative effectiveness research (Table 5-24). Because prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in men

TABLE 5-23 Ears, Eyes, Nose, and Throat Disorders Priority Topics

EENT-A Compare the effectiveness of different treatment options (e.g., laser therapy, intravitreal steroids, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [anti-VEGF]) for diabetic retinopathy, macular degeneration, and retinal vein occlusion.

EENT-B

Compare the effectiveness of treatment strategies for primary open-angle glaucoma (e.g., initial laser surgery, new surgical techniques, new medical treatments) particularly in minority populations to assess clinical and patient-reported outcomes.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

TABLE 5-24 Kidney and Urinary Tract Disorders Priority Topics

KUT-A Compare the effectiveness of management strategies for localized prostate cancer (e.g., active surveillance, radical prostatectomy [conventional, robotic, and laparoscopic], and radiotherapy [conformal, brachytherapy, proton-beam, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy]) on survival, recurrence, side effects, quality of life, and costs.

KUT-B

Compare the effectiveness (including survival, hospitalization, quality of life, and costs) of renal replacement therapies (e.g., daily home hemodialysis, intermittent home hemodialysis, conventional in-center dialysis, continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis, renal transplantation) for patients of different ages, races, and ethnicities.

(U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group, 2009), the committee recommended that all aspects of managing the disease be studied (KUT-A).

Renal failure is among the leading causes of mortality across all age groups (Kung et al., 2008). It is also one of the most costly diseases in adults over 65 years of age (AHRQ, 2009a). As such, the committee recommended comparing alternative renal replacement therapies with an emphasis on determining the effectiveness differences among different ages, race, and ethnicities (KUT-B).

Oral Health

The committee recommended two priority topics within oral health for CER, one comparing prevention to surgery in adults with periodontal disease (ORAL-A), and the other in children comparing delivery model approaches for preventing dental caries (cavities) (ORAL-B) (Table 5-25).

Palliative and End-of-Life Care

Effective management and delivery of palliative and end-of-life care is a challenge as the elderly population grows in the United States. Palliative and

TABLE 5-25 Oral Health Priority Topics

ORAL-A Compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical care and a medical model of prevention and care in managing periodontal disease to increase tooth longevity and reduce systemic secondary effects in other organ systems.

ORAL-B

Compare the effectiveness of the various delivery models (e.g., primary care, dental offices, schools, mobile vans) in preventing dental caries in children.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

TABLE 5-26 Palliative and End-of-Life Care Priority Topics

PELC-A Compare the effectiveness of coordinated care (supported by reimbursement innovations) and usual care in long-term and end-of-life care of the elderly.

PELC-B

Compare the effectiveness of hospital-based palliative care and usual care on patient-reported outcomes and cost.

end-of-life care services must be effective for a variety of populations, and in a variety of environments, including hospitals, long-term care facilities, and homes. The committee specifically recommends research comparing strategies to improve delivery of long-term and end-of-life care, including reimbursement models to support coordinated care (PELC-A) and comparing hospital-based palliative care services with standard care to standard care alone (PELC-B) (Table 5-26).

Gastrointestinal System Disorders

Disorders of the upper gastrointestinal tract, such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), are among the most prevalent disorders in the nation, and they are particularly prevalent among the elderly (AHRQ, 2009c). They are also among the most costly conditions for infants less than 1 year old (AHRQ, 2009a). The committee specifically recommends the research of the effects of endoscopy on the management and outcomes of patients with GERD as a priority (GI-A) (Table 5-27).

Immune System, Connective Tissue, and Joint Disorders

Conditions of the immune system, connective tissue, and joints such as arthritis and connective tissue disorders are some of the most prevalent and costly diseases in all age groups, especially in the elderly (AHRQ, 2009a,c). Both AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program and Healthy People 2010 list arthritis and non-traumatic joint disorders as national research priorities (HHS, 2000; Whitlock et al., 2009). The committee recommended comparing the effectiveness of different strategies, including biologics, in the treatment of these diseases (IMUN-A) (Table 5-28).

TABLE 5-27 Gastrointestinal System Disorders Priority Topics

GI-A Compare the effectiveness of upper endoscopy utilization and frequency for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease on morbidity, quality of life, and diagnosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma.
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

TABLE 5-28 Immune System, Connective Tissue, and Joint Disorders Priority Topics

IMUN-A Compare the effectiveness of different strategies of introducing biologics into the treatment algorithm for inflammatory diseases, including Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriatic arthritis.

Pediatrics

There are a variety of alternative and pharmacological treatments available for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but more research is needed to compare their effectiveness. In fact, AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program lists ADHD as a national priority (Whitlock et al., 2009). The committee recommended more research that addresses the comparative effectiveness of these treatments in decreasing the symptoms of ADHD in children (PEDS-A) (Table 5-29). There are a number of other important pediatric topics that are discussed under the research area categories eyes, ears, nose and throat; functional limitations and disabilities; birth and developmental disorders; nutrition; and respiratory disease.

Respiratory Disease

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and asthma are among the most prevalent, most costly, and morbid conditions for all age groups (AHRQ, 2009a,c; Kung et al., 2008). Asthma is especially common in children and is the leading condition in terms of cost (AHRQ, 2009a). In addition, AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program lists asthma as a priority research area (Whitlock et al., 2009). The committee recommended alternative strategies for managing asthma be studied through CER (RD-A) (Table 5-30).

Trauma, Emergency Medicine, and Critical Care Medicine

Accidents are a leading cause of death for all ages in the United States, and trauma-related disorders are listed as one of the most prevalent and

TABLE 5-29 Pediatric Disorders Priority Topics

PEDS-A Compare the effectiveness of various primary care treatment strategies (e.g., symptom management, cognitive behavior therapy, biofeedback, social skills, educator/teacher training, parent training, pharmacologic treatment) for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children.
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

TABLE 5-30 Respiratory Disorders Priority Topics

RD-A Compare the effectiveness of an integrated approach (combining counseling, environmental mitigation, chronic disease management, and legal assistance) with a non-integrated episodic care model in managing asthma in children.

TABLE 5-31 Trauma, Emergency Medicine, and Critical Care Medicine Priority Topics

TEMC-A Compare the effectiveness of treatment strategies (e.g., cognitive behavioral individual therapy, generic individual therapy, comprehensive and intensive treatment) for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder stemming from diverse sources of trauma.

costly (AHRQ, 2009a,c). While there are many disorders that arise from trauma and emergencies, the committee focused on the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in all populations and from all sources of trauma. With the large number of veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and increased recognition of the inadequacies of the nation’s health system to effectively treat patients with mental health conditions, it is important to identify effective treatment strategies. The committee recommended that PTSD be studied as part of a balanced portfolio of CER (TEMC-A) (Table 5-31).

TIMELINESS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE’S PRIORITY LIST

The committee believes that the priority list presented in this chapter is relevant to the needs and conditions of today. New questions in CER will continue to appear. However, the balance of topics across the portfolio, the correlation with established priorities by other groups, and the good fit between the topics and the pre-established, pre-specified criteria suggest that the process used by the committee was effective. As discussed in Chapters 4 and 6, this process requires modification if it is to be continued in the future.

Recognizing the dynamic nature of disease and the rapid technologic and therapeutic advancements in health care, these priorities may very well be answered by ongoing research or be superseded by new disorders in the near future. In fact, that is the committee’s hope and expectation. Recognition of priorities and initiation of new research should provide answers to the clinical dilemmas identified. Therefore, an ongoing and active process

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×

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).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 469
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 470
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 471
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 472
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 473
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 474
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 475
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 476
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 477
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 478
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 479
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 480
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 481
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 482
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 483
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 484
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 485
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 486
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 487
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 488
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 489
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 490
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 491
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 492
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 493
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 494
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 495
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 496
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 497
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 498
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 499
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 500
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 501
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 502
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 503
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 504
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 505
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 506
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 507
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 508
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 509
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: IOM Recommendations (2009)." Institute of Medicine. 2011. Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12214.
×
Page 510
Next: Appendix D: Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: FCCCER Recommendations (2009) »
Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Workshop Summary Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $75.00 Buy Ebook | $59.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

It is essential for patients and clinicians to have the resources needed to make informed, collaborative care decisions. Despite this need, only a small fraction of health-related expenditures in the United States have been devoted to comparative effectiveness research (CER). To improve the effectiveness and value of the care delivered, the nation needs to build its capacity for ongoing study and monitoring of the relative effectiveness of clinical interventions and care processes through expanded trials and studies, systematic reviews, innovative research strategies, and clinical registries, as well as improving its ability to apply what is learned from such study through the translation and provision of information and decision support.

As part of its Learning Health System series of workshops, the Institute of Medicine's (IOM's) Roundtable on Value & Science-Driven Health Care hosted a workshop to discuss capacity priorities to build the evidence base necessary for care that is more effective and delivers higher value for patients. Learning What Works summarizes the proceedings of the seventh workshop in the Learning Health System series. This workshop focused on the infrastructure needs--including methods, coordination capacities, data resources and linkages, and workforce--for developing an expanded and efficient national capacity for CER. Learning What Works also assesses the current and needed capacity to expand and improve this work, and identifies priority next steps.

Learning What Works is a valuable resource for health care professionals, as well as health care policy makers.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!