AIMS: This paper describes our process to engage regional stakeholders for prioritizing comparative effectiveness research (CER) in cancer diagnostics. We also describe a novel methodology for incorporating stakeholder data and input to inform the objectives of selected CER studies. MATERIALS & METHODS: As an integrated component to establishing the infrastructure for community-based CER on diagnostic technologies, we have assembled a regional stakeholder group composed of local payers, clinicians and state healthcare representatives to not only identify and prioritize CER topics most important to the western Washington State region, but also to inform the study design of selected research areas. A landscape analysis process combining literature searches, expert consultations and stakeholder discussions was used to identify possible CER topics in cancer diagnostics. Stakeholders prioritized the top topics using a modified Delphi/group-nominal method and a standardized evaluation criteria framework to determine a final selected CER study area. Implementation of the selected study was immediate due to a unique American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding structure involving the same researchers and stakeholders in both the prioritization and execution phases of the project. Stakeholder engagement was enhanced after study selection via a rapid analysis of a subset of payers' internal claims, coordinated by the research team, to obtain summary data of imaging patterns of use. Results of this preliminary analysis, which we termed an 'internal analysis,' were used to determine with the stakeholders the most important and feasible study objectives. RESULTS: Stakeholders identified PET and MRI in cancers including breast, lung, lymphoma and colorectal as top priorities. In an internal analysis of breast cancer imaging, summary data from three payers demonstrated utilization rates of advanced imaging increased between 2002 and 2009 in the study population, with a great deal of variability in use between different health plans. Assessing whether breast MRI affects treatment decisions was the top breast cancer study objective selected by the stakeholders. There were other high-priority research areas including whether MRI use improved survival that were not deemed feasible with the length of follow-up time following MRI adoption. CONCLUSION: Continuous stakeholder engagement greatly enhanced their enthusiasm for the project. We believe CER implementation will be more successful when undertaken by regional stakeholders.
AIMS: This paper describes our process to engage regional stakeholders for prioritizing comparative effectiveness research (CER) in cancer diagnostics. We also describe a novel methodology for incorporating stakeholder data and input to inform the objectives of selected CER studies. MATERIALS & METHODS: As an integrated component to establishing the infrastructure for community-based CER on diagnostic technologies, we have assembled a regional stakeholder group composed of local payers, clinicians and state healthcare representatives to not only identify and prioritize CER topics most important to the western Washington State region, but also to inform the study design of selected research areas. A landscape analysis process combining literature searches, expert consultations and stakeholder discussions was used to identify possible CER topics in cancer diagnostics. Stakeholders prioritized the top topics using a modified Delphi/group-nominal method and a standardized evaluation criteria framework to determine a final selected CER study area. Implementation of the selected study was immediate due to a unique American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding structure involving the same researchers and stakeholders in both the prioritization and execution phases of the project. Stakeholder engagement was enhanced after study selection via a rapid analysis of a subset of payers' internal claims, coordinated by the research team, to obtain summary data of imaging patterns of use. Results of this preliminary analysis, which we termed an 'internal analysis,' were used to determine with the stakeholders the most important and feasible study objectives. RESULTS: Stakeholders identified PET and MRI in cancers including breast, lung, lymphoma and colorectal as top priorities. In an internal analysis of breast cancer imaging, summary data from three payers demonstrated utilization rates of advanced imaging increased between 2002 and 2009 in the study population, with a great deal of variability in use between different health plans. Assessing whether breast MRI affects treatment decisions was the top breast cancer study objective selected by the stakeholders. There were other high-priority research areas including whether MRI use improved survival that were not deemed feasible with the length of follow-up time following MRI adoption. CONCLUSION: Continuous stakeholder engagement greatly enhanced their enthusiasm for the project. We believe CER implementation will be more successful when undertaken by regional stakeholders.
Authors: William J Sutherland; Ros Aveling; Leon Bennun; Eleanor Chapman; Mick Clout; Isabelle M Côté; Michael H Depledge; Lynn V Dicks; Andrew P Dobson; Liz Fellman; Erica Fleishman; David W Gibbons; Brandon Keim; Fiona Lickorish; David B Lindenmayer; Kathryn A Monk; Kenneth Norris; Lloyd S Peck; Stephanie V Prior; Jörn P W Scharlemann; Mark Spalding; Andrew R Watkinson Journal: Trends Ecol Evol Date: 2011-11-29 Impact factor: 17.712
Authors: Rachel E Behrman; Joshua S Benner; Jeffrey S Brown; Mark McClellan; Janet Woodcock; Richard Platt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elliott S Fisher; David E Wennberg; Thérèse A Stukel; Daniel J Gottlieb; F L Lucas; Etoile L Pinder Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-02-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Pamela S Douglas; Allen Taylor; Diane Bild; Robert Bonow; Philip Greenland; Michael Lauer; Frank Peacock; James Udelson Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-07
Authors: Mathilde Savy; Karen Edmond; Paul E M Fine; Andrew Hall; Branwen J Hennig; Sophie E Moore; Kim Mulholland; Ulrich Schaible; Andrew M Prentice Journal: J Nutr Date: 2009-09-30 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Rachel Gold; Evelyn P Whitlock; Carrie D Patnode; Paul S McGinnis; David I Buckley; Cynthia Morris Journal: Health Expect Date: 2011-08-12 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Elizabeth T Loggers; Hongyuan Gao; Laura S Gold; Larry Kessler; Ruth Etzioni; Diana Sm Buist Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2015-05-11 Impact factor: 1.744
Authors: Laura S Gold; Diana S M Buist; Elizabeth T Loggers; Ruth Etzioni; Larry Kessler; Scott D Ramsey; Sean D Sullivan Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Sarah Barger; Sean D Sullivan; Ari Bell-Brown; Brad Bott; Anne Marie Ciccarella; John Golenski; Mark Gorman; Judy Johnson; Karma Kreizenbeck; Florence Kurttila; Ginny Mason; Jamie Myers; Carole Seigel; James L Wade; Guneet Walia; Kate Watabayashi; Gary H Lyman; Scott D Ramsey Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Sid E O'Bryant; Melissa Edwards; Leigh Johnson; James Hall; Alcibiades E Villarreal; Gabrielle B Britton; Mary Quiceno; C Munro Cullum; Neill R Graff-Radford Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2016-06-25