Literature DB >> 23597816

Measurement in comparative effectiveness research.

Jessica Chubak1, Carolyn M Rutter, Aruna Kamineni, Eric A Johnson, Natasha K Stout, Noel S Weiss, V Paul Doria-Rose, Chyke A Doubeni, Diana S M Buist.   

Abstract

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) on preventive services can shape policy and help patients, their providers, and public health practitioners select regimens and programs for disease prevention. Patients and providers need information about the relative effectiveness of various regimens they may choose. Decision makers need information about the relative effectiveness of various programs to offer or recommend. The goal of this paper is to define and differentiate measures of relative effectiveness of regimens and programs for disease prevention. Cancer screening is used to demonstrate how these measures differ in an example of two hypothetical screening regimens and programs. Conceptually and algebraically defined measures of relative regimen and program effectiveness also are presented. The measures evaluate preventive services that range from individual tests through organized, population-wide prevention programs. Examples illustrate how effective screening regimens may not result in effective screening programs and how measures can vary across subgroups and settings. Both regimen and program relative effectiveness measures assess benefits of prevention services in real-world settings, but each addresses different scientific and policy questions. As the body of CER grows, a common lexicon for various measures of relative effectiveness becomes increasingly important to facilitate communication and shared understanding among researchers, healthcare providers, patients, and policymakers.
Copyright © 2013 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23597816      PMCID: PMC3631525          DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.01.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Prev Med        ISSN: 0749-3797            Impact factor:   5.043


  33 in total

Review 1.  Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.

Authors:  R E Glasgow; T M Vogt; S M Boles
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 2.  Screening for cervical cancer in the developing world.

Authors:  H S Cronjé
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2005-03-26       Impact factor: 5.237

3.  Cluster randomized trials: opportunities and barriers identified by leaders of eight health plans.

Authors:  Kathleen M Mazor; James E Sabin; Denise Boudreau; Michael J Goodman; Jerry H Gurwitz; Lisa J Herrinton; Marsha A Raebel; Douglas Roblin; David H Smith; Vanessa Meterko; Richard Platt
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; R Edward Hendrick; Martin J Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Jean B Cormack; Lucy A Hanna; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence W Bassett; Carl J D'Orsi; Roberta A Jong; Murray Rebner; Anna N A Tosteson; Constantine A Gatsonis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-10-06       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 6.  Design and analysis of group-randomized trials in cancer: a review of current practices.

Authors:  David M Murray; Sherri L Pals; Jonathan L Blitstein; Catherine M Alfano; Jennifer Lehman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-03-25       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Cost-effectiveness of cervical-cancer screening in five developing countries.

Authors:  Sue J Goldie; Lynne Gaffikin; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Amparo Gordillo-Tobar; Carol Levin; Cédric Mahé; Thomas C Wright
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-11-17       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Revisions in the risk-based Breast Cancer Screening Program at Group Health Cooperative.

Authors:  S H Taplin; R S Thompson; F Schnitzer; C Anderman; V Immanuel
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1990-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients.

Authors:  Sarah T Hawley; Robert J Volk; Partha Krishnamurthy; Maria Jibaja-Weiss; Sally W Vernon; Suzanne Kneuper
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  1 in total

1.  Breast cancer mortality in relation to receipt of screening mammography: a case-control study in Saskatchewan, Canada.

Authors:  Gaia Pocobelli; Noel S Weiss
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 2.506

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.