Search

Aim: We developed the Patient-Engaged Health Technology Assessment strategy for survey-based goal collection from patients to yield patient-important outcomes suitable for use in multi-criteria decision analysis. Methods: Rheumatoid arthritis patients were recruited from online patient networks for proof-of-concept testing of goal collection and prioritization using a survey. A Project Steering Committee and Expert Panel rated the feasibility of scaling to larger samples. Results: Survey respondents (n = 47) completed the goal collection exercise. Finding effective treatments was rated by respondents as the most important goal, and reducing stiffness was rated as the least important. Feedback from our steering committee and expert panel support the approach's feasibility for goal identification and ranking. Conclusion: Goals relevant for treatment evaluation can be identified and rated for importance by patients to permit wide input from patients with lived experience of disease.

Objectives To enhance the generalizability of the evidence it reviews, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has encouraged manufacturers to expand the submission of real-world evidence (RWE). The extent to which this evidence, which is generated outside of research settings, can support decision making remains unclear. We described the current use of RWE for medical devices, assessed manufacturers’ challenges in generating and using it for regulatory and coverage decisions, and identified opportunities to expand its use. Methods We conducted 27 solo and group interviews with FDA officials and representatives of device manufacturers, payers, and health technology assessment organizations. All interviews used a semistructured protocol and were transcribed to allow thematic analysis. Results Accessing and linking real-world data sources, identifying unique devices, capturing longitudinal data, limited staff expertise, and uncertain return on investment have hampered efforts to use real-world data. Many companies in our sample were conducting research using real-world data, but none had submitted RWE as the primary evidence supporting a premarket approval. FDA guidance was helpful, but regulatory requirements remained ambiguous and examples of successful regulatory decisions based on RWE were limited. Payers mainly used RWE to supplement experimental evidence in coverage decisions, evaluated both types of evidence in similar ways, and had concerns about the rigor of RWE. Conclusions Technical challenges may slow efforts to generate and use RWE in the near term. Additional regulatory guidance and examples, greater use of rigorous study designs and analytic methods, and continued stakeholder engagement could accelerate the use of RWE.

Aim: Research regarding decisions patients make about total knee arthroplasty, apart from having the procedure or not, are limited. Understanding patient decision making and related information needs is essential for shared decision making. Methods: Focus groups with an online community-based sample identified decisions about total knee arthroplasty beyond the decision to have the surgery itself. An online survey was used to determine relative importance of five major decisions and evaluate related information available. Results: Patients did not feel they have enough information to make important decisions of surgeon, device type, surgical approach, facility, or timing, for their total knee arthroplasty. Conclusion: Although further research is needed to generalize these findings, physicians should consider these questions during shared decision making with patients considering total knee arthroplasty.

Aim: Despite broad interest in advancing personalized medicine, most evidence is currently derived from average results of clinical trials that may obscure heterogeneity of trial participants. Little is known currently about how patients view heterogeneity in trials and whether they can participate in methodological discussions about this concept. Materials & methods: In structured discussions with three focus groups involving 22 participants, we assessed how representatives of patient communities have used research to guide individual treatment decisions. Discussion themes were organized into a framework describing patient decision-making in four steps: decisions patients make in the course of care; information used to make decisions; sources for information; and quality of information. Results/conclusion: Patients prioritize information that reflects their own characteristics, preferences and values. They struggle applying clinical research to their own case.

Substantially engaging stakeholders in research involves making extensive changes to the full life cycle of research, from the initial stage of selecting research priorities to the final stages of dissemination and implementation. Recent scholarship has explored logistical and methodological challenges, including the time, training and resources required for engagement. However, inadequate attention has been given to the intended ends or goals of engagement – what do we want engagement to achieve? An examination of historical case studies can yield important insights regarding engagement and its intended ends. Using historical perspective methods, we explore how clarity about the ends of engagement can inform the design of engagement efforts and lead to better outcomes. We present several lessons for improving stakeholder-engaged research.

To investigate the relationship between the framing of survival gains and the perceived value of cancer care.Through a population-based survey of 2040 US adults, respondents were randomized to one of the two sets of hypothetical scenarios, each of which described the survival benefit for a new treatment as either an increase in median survival time (median survival), or an increase in the probability of survival for a given length of time (landmark survival). Each respondent was presented with two randomly selected scenarios with different prognosis and survival improvements, and asked about their willingness to pay (WTP) for the new treatments.Predicted WTP increased with survival benefits and respondents' income, regardless of how survival benefits were described. Framing therapeutic benefits as improvements in landmark rather than median time survival increased the proportion of the population willing to pay for that gain by 11-35%, and the mean WTP amount by 42-72% in the scenarios we compared.How survival benefits are described may influence the value people place on cancer care.

Quality measurement is critical to identifying high-quality care and improving the quality of care. The opportunities and challenges for consumers to engage in quality measurement warrant careful examination. This report explores the experience of consumer advocates in engaging with quality measurement, identifies barriers to effective consumer engagement, and suggests ways to address those barriers.

Aim: With rapid innovations in diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in cancer care, comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs) are essential to inform clinical practice and guide future research. However, the optimal means to identify priority CER topics are uninvestigated. We aimed to devise a transparent and reproducible process to identify ten to 12 CER topics in the area of cancer imaging relevant to a wide range of stakeholders. Materials & methods: Environmental scans and explicit prioritization criteria supported interactions (email communications, web-based discussions and live teleconferences) with experts and stakeholders culminating in a three-phase deductive exercise for prioritization of CER topics. Results: We prioritized 12 CER topics in breast, lung and gastrointestinal cancers that addressed screening, diagnosis, staging, monitoring and evaluating response to treatment. Conclusion: Our project developed and implemented a transparent and reproducible process for research prioritization and topic nomination that can be further refined to improve the relevance of future CERs.

Background: Medicare claims data sets have been used widely in outcomes research over the last decade. In 2010, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services established a program to create de-identified basic standalone public use files (PUFs) from Medicare claims data, each one containing claims information from a 5% sample of beneficiaries. Methods: We conducted a series of structured key informant interviews with research stakeholders to compile recommendations that would guide the creation of these PUFs. In this paper, we describe the interview methodology and present our findings. Fifteen researchers, representing a range of clinical health services and health policy expertise, were interviewed. Results: All respondents supported the use of Medicare claims in comparative effectiveness research and responded favorably to the creation of PUFs for this purpose. The interviews resulted in administrative-, technical- and content-related recommendations, some of which led to important changes in the PUFs. Discussion: A primary trade-off in the development of the proposed PUFs involved assuring maximum research utility of the files while assuring security of beneficiaries’ protected health information. Protection of protected health information was considered a requirement. Given this constraint, the proposed PUFs may be most useful for two primary activities in comparative effectiveness research: first, working through the beginning stages of a research project; and second, examining high-level questions.

Aim: To identify ongoing practices and opportunities for improving national comparative effectiveness research (CER) translation through dissemination and implementation (D&I) via NIH-funded Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) institutions. Materials & methods: Key informant interviews were conducted with 18 CTSA grantees sampled to represent a range of D&I efforts. Results & conclusions: The institutional representatives endorsed fostering CER translation nationally via the CTSA Consortium. However, five themes emerged from the interviews as barriers to CER D&I: lack of institutional awareness, insufficient capacity, lack of established D&I methods, confusion among stakeholders about what CER actually is and limited funding opportunities. Interviewees offered two key recommendations to improve CER translation: development of a centralized clearing house to facilitate the diffusion of CER D&I resources and methods across CTSA institutions; and formalization of the national CTSA network to leverage existing community engagement relationships and resources for the purpose of adapting and disseminating robust CER evidence locally with providers, patients and healthcare systems.

We assessed how much, if anything, people would pay for a laboratory test that predicted their future disease status. A questionnaire was administered via an internet-based survey to a random sample of adult US respondents. Each respondent answered questions about two different scenarios, each of which specified: one of four randomly selected diseases (Alzheimer's, arthritis, breast cancer, or prostate cancer); an ex ante risk of developing the disease (randomly designated 10 or 25%); and test accuracy (randomly designated perfect or 'not perfectly accurate'). Willingness-to-pay (WTP) was elicited with a double-bounded, dichotomous-choice approach. Of 1463 respondents who completed the survey, most (70-88%, depending on the scenario) were inclined to take the test. Inclination to take the test was lower for Alzheimer's and higher for prostate cancer compared with arthritis, and rose somewhat with disease prevalence and for the perfect versus imperfect test [Correction made here after initial online publication.]. Median WTP varied from $109 for the imperfect arthritis test to $263 for the perfect prostate cancer test. Respondents' preferences for predictive testing, even in the absence of direct treatment consequences, reflected health and non-health related factors, and suggests that conventional cost-effectiveness analyses may underestimate the value of testing.