Affordable Access

deepdyve-link
Publisher Website

How different is research done by the Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute, and what difference does it make?

Authors
  • Luce, Bryan R1, 2, 3
  • Simeone, Jason C2
  • 1 Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy and Economics (CHOICE), School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
  • 2 Real-world Evidence, Evidera, Inc., MD 20814, USA.
  • 3 Luce Outcomes Research, WA 98245, USA.
Type
Published Article
Journal
Journal of comparative effectiveness research
Publication Date
Oct 01, 2019
Volume
8
Issue
14
Pages
1239–1251
Identifiers
DOI: 10.2217/cer-2019-0054
PMID: 31436471
Source
Medline
Keywords
Language
English
License
Unknown

Abstract

Aim: To determine whether research funded by the Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is consistent with the original aims of Congress and unique among other major USA funders. Methods: We compared a sample of funded projects from PCORI, NIH (Phase IV) and agency for healthcare research and quality (AHRQ; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA]-based comparative effectiveness research funding) from 2014 to 2018 on number of outcomes/study, patient-centeredness of outcomes (those related to survival, function, symptoms and health-related quality of life) and other features that may characterize patient-centered research (e.g., whether conducted in a real-world setting) using PCORI portfolio data and ClinicalTrials.gov. Results: The mean number of outcomes in PCORI studies (≥9) appeared higher than NIH (≥3)/AHRQ (5.5); a higher percentage of outcomes/study were patient-centered: >85% PCORI versus 50% AHRQ and ≤30% NIH. The majority of PCORI studies (≥74%) were conducted in a real-world setting; this characteristic could not be identified for NIH/AHRQ studies. Conclusion: PCORI-funded studies appear to have unique aspects relative to NIH and AHRQ that are consistent with PCORI's aims of patient-centeredness.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times