Comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research: enhancing uptake and use by patients, clinicians and payers

Schumock, Glen T.; Pickard, A. Simon

doi:10.2217/cer-2017-0057

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Selecting an appropriate tool to design a valid and meaningful study is imperative, as it directly influences the value of outcome-based research [22][23][24][25][26][27] . Studies examining the nose-related outcomes associated with skeletofacial reconstruction have primarily adopted the 3D morphometric-based objective measure tool 6 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient- and 3D morphometry-based nose outcomes after skeletofacial reconstruction

Denadai

Chou

Seo

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient satisfaction with the shape and appearance of their nose after orthognathic surgery-based skeletofacial reconstruction is an important, but often overlooked, outcome. We assessed the nose-related outcomes through a recently developed patient-reported outcome instrument and a widely adopted 3D computer-based objective outcome instrument, to verify any correlation in the results produced by these tools. We collected FACE-Q nose appearance reports (2 scales) and 3D nasal morphometry (10 parameters) from patients with class III skeletal pattern and congenital cleft lip palate deformity (n = 23) or developmental dentofacial deformity (n = 23) after (>12 months) skeletofacial reconstruction. The cleft and dentofacial cohorts demonstrated significantly (p < 0.001) poorer satisfaction scores with regard to the FACE-Q nostrils scale than the normal age-, gender-, and ethnicity-matched subjects (n = 107), without any significant difference in FACE-Q nose scale. The cleft cohort had significantly (p < 0.001) smaller nasal length, nasal tip projection, and columellar angle and greater nasal protrusion, alar width, and columellar-labial angle values than the dentofacial and normal cohorts; however, there were no significant differences between the dentofacial versus normal cohorts. The FACE-Q nose and nostrils scales were significantly (p < 0.001; r = −0.26-0.27) correlated to the results of the 3D morphometric analysis, with regard to nasal length, alar width, columella angle, and columellar-labial angle parameters. This study revealed differences in satisfaction with the appearance of the nose according to the type of underlying deformity, and demonstrated a significant correlation (low correlation coefficients) between the patient-reports and 3D image-based outcome measure tools, which has implications for multidisciplinary-centered research, auditing, and clinical care. Facial deformities associated with abnormal maxillo-mandibular relationships, such as congenital cleft lip and palate and developmental dentofacial deformities, significantly affect oral function and facial aesthetics 1,2. Skeletofacial reconstruction using orthognathic surgery principle is a successful treatment modality for these abnormalities 3-5. However, a number of post-surgical facial modifications are the primary causes of concern among the patients, particularly changes in the nasal morphology 6. A growing number of studies have addressed this issue by adopting three-dimensional (3D) nasal measurements 6-15 , but the effects of skeletofacial reconstruction are beyond these imaging-guided outcome metrics 1,4,5. The patient satisfaction with the appearance of their nose is an important, albeit often overlooked, outcome parameter after orthognathic surgery. Therefore, including a patient's self-perception by employing patient-reported outcome (PRO) techniques may help clinicians to understand the health-related concerns of the patient 16,17. Literature reviews 4,5 have revealed that a plethora of PRO instruments have been utilized to primaril...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient- and 3D morphometry-based nose outcomes after skeletofacial reconstruction

Denadai

Chou

Seo

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the conference title makes clear, the conference focused on enhancing the uptake and use of CER/PCOR by patients, clinicians and payers. Details of the conference proceedings are found in the two companion papers in this series [16,17].…”

Section: Cer Centers Of Excellence Strategic Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nine years of comparative effectiveness research education and training: initiative supported by the PhRMA Foundation

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term comparative effectiveness research (CER) took center stage with passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009). The companion US$1.1 billion in funding prompted the launch of initiatives to train the scientific workforce capable of conducting and using CER. Passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010) focused these initiatives on patients, coining the term ‘patient-centered outcomes research’ (PCOR). Educational and training initiatives were soon launched. This report describes the initiative of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America (PhRMA) Foundation. Through provision of grant funding to six academic Centers of Excellence, to spearheading and sponsoring three national conferences, the PhRMA Foundation has made significant contributions to creation of the scientific workforce that conducts and uses CER/PCOR.

show abstract

“…Finally, information processes, including concerns about accessing up-to-date information (Schumock & Pickard, 2018), beliefs about what constitutes evidence (Gupta et al, 2017;Ubel & Asch, 2015), and the source or combination of sources from which the physician receives the evidence (Gupta et al, 2017;Pollack et al, 2017) are likely to impact physician behavior. In one review of the literature on physician behavior change, researchers found that medical decisions are disproportionately influenced by the physicians' mentors (Cunningham et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Source-Related Influences on Physicians’ Translating Comparative Effectiveness Research into Patient Care: Results from a Study of Cardiologists

Elder¹,

MPAff²

2021

SSSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparative effectiveness research (CER), which refers to an evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of two or more medical interventions that are used to treat the same condition, has the potential to inform decision-making in both policy circles and physicians’ exam rooms. The ability of stakeholders to translate that research into practice has important implications for health outcomes, but the impact of information sources on physicians in translating CER remains understudied. This project examines the source-related influences on and motivations of cardiologists with respect to willingness to make changes in their practice based on emerging CER results. The results from this survey of cardiologists (N = 42) indicate that the source of information (including perceived credibility of those sources) matters greatly to cardiologists when deciding whether to make a change in practice. These findings suggest data-based implications for researchers and practitioners that are engaged in closing the CER translation gap.

show abstract

Comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research: enhancing uptake and use by patients, clinicians and payers

Cited by 5 publications

References 10 publications

Patient- and 3D morphometry-based nose outcomes after skeletofacial reconstruction

Patient- and 3D morphometry-based nose outcomes after skeletofacial reconstruction

Nine years of comparative effectiveness research education and training: initiative supported by the PhRMA Foundation

Understanding Source-Related Influences on Physicians’ Translating Comparative Effectiveness Research into Patient Care: Results from a Study of Cardiologists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About