Improving Comparative Effectiveness Research of Complex Health Interventions: Standards from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)

Abstract

Introduction Complex health interventions (CHIs) are increasingly studied in comparative effectiveness research (CER), and there is a need for improvements in CHI research practices. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Methodology Committee (MC) launched an effort in 2016 to develop formal guidance on this topic. Objective To develop a set of minimal standards for scientifically valid, transparent, and reproducible CER studies of CHIs. The standards are intended to apply to research examining a broad range of healthcare interventions including delivery system, behavior change, and other non-pharmacological interventions. Methods We conducted a literature review, reviewed existing methods guidance, and developed standards through an iterative process involving the MC, two panels of external research methods experts, and a 60-day public comment period. The final standards were approved by the PCORI MC and adopted by the PCORI Board of Governors on April 30, 2018. Results The final standards include the following: (1) fully describe the intervention and comparator and define their core functions, (2) specify the hypothesized causal pathways and their theoretical basis, (3) specify how adaptations to the form of the intervention and comparator will be allowed and recorded, (4) plan and describe a process evaluation, and (5) select patient outcomes informed by the causal pathway. Discussion The new standards offer three major contributions to research: (1) they provide a simple framework to help investigators address the major methodological features of a CHI study, (2) they emphasize the importance of the causal model and the need to understand how a CHI achieves its effects rather than simply measuring these effects, and (3) they require description of a CHI using the concepts of core functions and forms. While these standards apply formally to PCORI-funded CER studies, they have broad applicability.

Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Literature Review and Content Analysis of Frameworks

“…The field of AI in medicine could stand to learn from the clearer methodological standards and best practices currently existent in established fields such as patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) [51,60]. PCOR works to advance the quality and relevance of evidence about how to prevent, diagnose, treat, monitor, and manage health care; this evidence helps patients, caregivers, clinicians, policymakers, and other health care stakeholders make better decisions.…”

Effects of goal‐oriented care for adults with multimorbidity: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Future efforts should be directed to overcoming the shortcomings of the trials examined in this meta‐analysis. Sound application of the recent indications for research on complex healthcare interventions is warranted 44 . Key features should include the use of mixed models providing qualitative analyses alongside the quantitative evaluations; standardized descriptions of the intervention and comparator; specifications of the hypothetical causal pathways; selection of relevant outcomes on the basis of the causal pathway and assessed by validated instruments; duration of intervention and follow‐up consistent with the characteristics and needs of the population receiving the interventions.…”

Co-creating the Patient Partner Guide by a Multiple Chronic Conditions Team of Patients, Clinicians, and Researchers: Observational Report

“…Understanding and improving key processes of patient engagement in research will continue to lead to new opportunities to standardize research practice. For example, developing a standard process to engage patient partners in examining a proposed intervention and its interface with study participants is a potential step that can build on comparative effectiveness research standards, as proposed by Esmail et al 41 …”