National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report
Latest available findings on quality of and access to health care
Data
- Data Infographics
- Data Visualizations
- Data Tools
- Data Innovations
- All-Payer Claims Database
- Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)
- Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)
- AHRQ Quality Indicator Tools for Data Analytics
- State Snapshots
- United States Health Information Knowledgebase (USHIK)
- Data Sources Available from AHRQ
Search All Research Studies
AHRQ Research Studies Date
Topics
- Access to Care (1)
- Back Health and Pain (1)
- Behavioral Health (2)
- Care Management (1)
- Children/Adolescents (1)
- Chronic Conditions (1)
- Comparative Effectiveness (1)
- Data (1)
- (-) Evidence-Based Practice (20)
- Healthcare Delivery (3)
- (-) Health Services Research (HSR) (20)
- Implementation (2)
- Outcomes (1)
- Pain (1)
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (5)
- Policy (1)
- Primary Care (1)
- (-) Research Methodologies (20)
- Skin Conditions (1)
AHRQ Research Studies
Sign up: AHRQ Research Studies Email updates
Research Studies is a compilation of published research articles funded by AHRQ or authored by AHRQ researchers.
Results
1 to 20 of 20 Research Studies DisplayedSaldanha IJ, Adam GP, Bañez LL
AHRQ Author: Bañez LL
Inclusion of nonrandomized studies of interventions in systematic reviews of interventions: updated guidance from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality Effective Health Care program.
A guidance workgroup comprised systematic review experts utilized an informal consensus generation method to develop guidelines to inform decisions regarding the inclusion of nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) in systematic reviews (SRs) of the effects of interventions. The study found that varying topics may require varying decisions regarding NRSI inclusion. The researchers identified key considerations to inform the decisions; from refinement of topics through to development of protocols. During the scoping and refinement of topics, considerations were associated with the clinical decisional dilemma, adequacy of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to address the crucial questions, risk of bias in NRSIs, and the degree to which NRSIs are likely to complement RCTs. When NRSIs are included, during SR team formation, familiarity with topic-specific data sources and advanced analytic methods for NRSIs should be considered. During protocol development, the decision regarding NRSI inclusion or exclusion should be justified, and potential implications explained. When NRSIs are included, the protocol should describe the processes for synthesizing evidence from RCTs and NRSIs and determining the overall strength of evidence. CONCLUSION: We identified specific considerations for decisions regarding NRSI inclusion in SRs and highlight the importance of flexibility and transparency.
AHRQ-authored; AHRQ-funded; 290-2017-00003 -C; 75Q80120D00001- 75Q8120D00003; 75Q80120D00005 - 75Q8120D00009.
Citation: Saldanha IJ, Adam GP, Bañez LL .
Inclusion of nonrandomized studies of interventions in systematic reviews of interventions: updated guidance from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality Effective Health Care program.
J Clin Epidemiol 2022 Dec; 152:300-06. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.08.015..
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Research Methodologies, Health Services Research (HSR)
Lewis CC, Powell BJ, Brewer SK
Advancing mechanisms of implementation to accelerate sustainable evidence-based practice integration: protocol for generating a research agenda.
This article outlines the protocol for an AHRQ-funded initiative to: 1) establish priorities for an agenda to guide research on implementation mechanisms in health and public health, and 2) disseminate the agenda to research, policy, and practice audiences. The goal is to advance mechanisms of implementation to accelerate sustainable evidence-based practice integration. A network of scientific experts will be created to convene in “Deep Dive” meetings for 3 years. The research agenda will be generated through analysis and synthesis of information from 6 sources: (1) systematic reviews, (2) network members' approaches to studying mechanisms, (3) new proposals presented in implementation proposal feedback sessions, (4) working group sessions conducted in a leading implementation research training institute, (5) breakout sessions at the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration's (SIRC) 2019 conference and (6) SIRC conference abstracts. Mechanism-relevant text segments will be extracted by two members and a third member will generate statements as an input for concept mapping.
AHRQ-funded; HS025632.
Citation: Lewis CC, Powell BJ, Brewer SK .
Advancing mechanisms of implementation to accelerate sustainable evidence-based practice integration: protocol for generating a research agenda.
BMJ Open 2021 Oct 18;11(10):e053474. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053474..
Keywords: Implementation, Evidence-Based Practice, Research Methodologies, Health Services Research (HSR)
Callejo-Black A, Wagner DV, Ramanujam K
A systematic review of external validity in pediatric integrated primary care trials.
This study used the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to conduct a systematic review of external validity reporting in integrated primary care (IPC) interventions for mental health concerns. A literature search was conducted to identify relevant literature from 1998 to 2018 reporting on open, randomized or quasi-randomized trials of IPC interventions that targeted child (ages 0-18 years) psychological symptoms. The authors included 39 publications describing 25 studies in the review. Publications rarely reported indicators of external validity, including the representatives of participants (12%), rate of adoption clinics or providers (16%), cost of implementation (8%), or evidence of maintenance (16%). Few studies also included key pragmatic factors such as cost or organizational change processes related to implementation and maintenance.
AHRQ-funded; HS022981.
Citation: Callejo-Black A, Wagner DV, Ramanujam K .
A systematic review of external validity in pediatric integrated primary care trials.
J Pediatr Psychol 2020 Oct 1;45(9):1039-52. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsaa068..
Keywords: Children/Adolescents, Primary Care, Behavioral Health, Healthcare Delivery, Evidence-Based Practice, Health Services Research (HSR), Research Methodologies
Landes SJ, Kerns SEU, Pilar MR
Proceedings of the Fifth Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2019: where the rubber meets the road: the intersection of research, policy, and practice - part 1.
This paper offers a compilation of the abstracts of the oral and poster presentations from the 2019 Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) Conference entitled “Where the Rubber Meets the Road: The Intersection of Research, Policy, and Practice” held in Seattle from 12-14 September. The society had evolved following a NIMH-funded conference grant and is now an international society. The conference included 432 attendees. Highlights of the conference are described.
AHRQ-funded; HS025632.
Citation: Landes SJ, Kerns SEU, Pilar MR .
Proceedings of the Fifth Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2019: where the rubber meets the road: the intersection of research, policy, and practice - part 1.
Implement Sci 2020 Sep 30;15(Suppl 3):76. doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-01034-7..
Keywords: Implementation, Health Services Research (HSR), Evidence-Based Practice, Policy, Research Methodologies
Tsou AY, Treadwell JR, Erinoff E
Machine learning for screening prioritization in systematic reviews: comparative performance of Abstrackr and EPPI-Reviewer.
Improving the speed of systematic review (SR) development is key to supporting evidence-based medicine. Machine learning tools which semi-automate citation screening might improve efficiency. Few studies have assessed use of screening prioritization functionality or compared two tools head to head. In this project, the investigators compared performance of two machine-learning tools for potential use in citation screening.
AHRQ-funded; HS025859.
Citation: Tsou AY, Treadwell JR, Erinoff E .
Machine learning for screening prioritization in systematic reviews: comparative performance of Abstrackr and EPPI-Reviewer.
Syst Rev 2020 Apr 2;9(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01324-7..
Keywords: Health Services Research (HSR), Research Methodologies, Evidence-Based Practice, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
Broder-Fingert S, Kuhn J, Sheldrick RC
Using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) framework to test intervention delivery strategies: a study protocol.
Researchers describe a study protocol for a large randomized controlled trial using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST), a novel framework developed to optimize interventions. They apply this framework to delivery of Family Navigation (FN), an evidence-based care management strategy designed to reduce disparities and improve access to behavioral health services, and test four components related to its implementation. In this paper, they describe how the MOST framework can be used to improve intervention delivery. These methods will be useful for future studies testing intervention delivery strategies and their impact on implementation.
AHRQ-funded; HS022242.
Citation: Broder-Fingert S, Kuhn J, Sheldrick RC .
Using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) framework to test intervention delivery strategies: a study protocol.
Trials 2019 Dec 16;20(1):728. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3853-y..
Keywords: Research Methodologies, Health Services Research (HSR), Healthcare Delivery, Behavioral Health, Evidence-Based Practice, Access to Care
Gates A, Guitard S, Pillay J
Performance and usability of machine learning for screening in systematic reviews: a comparative evaluation of three tools.
Researchers explored the performance of three machine learning tools designed to facilitate title and abstract screening in systematic reviews (SRs) when used to eliminate irrelevant records and complement the work of a single reviewer. Using Abstrackr, DistillerSR, and RobotAnalyst, they found that the workload savings afforded in the automated simulation came with increased risk of missing relevant records. Supplementing a single reviewer's decisions with relevance predictions sometimes reduced the proportion missed, but performance varied by tool and SR. They recommend designing tools based on reviewers' self-identified preferences to improve compatibility with present workflows.
AHRQ-funded; 290201500001I.
Citation: Gates A, Guitard S, Pillay J .
Performance and usability of machine learning for screening in systematic reviews: a comparative evaluation of three tools.
Syst Rev 2019 Nov 15;8(1):278. doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1222-2..
Keywords: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Health Services Research (HSR), Research Methodologies, Evidence-Based Practice, Comparative Effectiveness
Gartlehner G, Wagner G, Lux L
Assessing the accuracy of machine-assisted abstract screening with DistillerAI: a user study.
The goal of this project was to conduct a case study to explore a screening approach that temporarily replaces a human screener with a semi-automated screening tool. The authors used DistillerAI as a semi-automated screening tool, and a published comparative effectiveness review served as their reference standard. They found that the accuracy of DistillerAI was not yet adequate to replace a human screener temporarily during abstract screening for systematic reviews.
AHRQ-funded; 290201500011I.
Citation: Gartlehner G, Wagner G, Lux L .
Assessing the accuracy of machine-assisted abstract screening with DistillerAI: a user study.
Syst Rev 2019 Nov 15;8(1):277. doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1221-3..
Keywords: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Health Services Research (HSR), Research Methodologies, Evidence-Based Practice
Marshall IJ, Marshall R, Wallace BC
Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study.
Researchers analyzed the difference in results between systematic reviews and rapid reviews. They stimulated searching only PubMed, excluding older articles, smaller trials, and using the largest trial only. They examined percentage changes in pooled odds ratios (ORs), statistical significance, and biases between systematic reviews and rapid reviews. A total of 2,512 systematic reviews were included. Using only PubMed had the smallest risk of changed ORs. There were also changes in statistical significance but no evidence of bias. They concluded that rapid reviews can be considered where approximately 10% risk of the primary outcome or by changing greater than 20% could be tolerated.
AHRQ-funded; HS025024.
Citation: Marshall IJ, Marshall R, Wallace BC .
Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study.
J Clin Epidemiol 2019 May;109:30-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.12.015..
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Health Services Research (HSR), Research Methodologies
Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Wagner G
Increased risks for random errors are common in outcomes graded as high certainty of evidence.
The goal of this article was to assess the risk for random errors in outcomes graded as high certainty of evidence (CoE). Results showed that, overall, 38% of high CoE outcomes had increased risks for random errors. Outcomes assessing harms were more frequently affected than outcomes assessing benefits. Regrading of outcomes with increased random errors showed that 74% should have been downgraded based on current guidance. Recommendations included being aware that outcomes rated as high CoE often have increased risks for false-positive or false-negative findings.
AHRQ-funded; HS024749.
Citation: Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Wagner G .
Increased risks for random errors are common in outcomes graded as high certainty of evidence.
J Clin Epidemiol 2019 Feb;106:50-59. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.10.009..
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Health Services Research (HSR), Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Research Methodologies
Lin L, Xing A, Kofler MJ
Borrowing of strength from indirect evidence in 40 network meta-analyses.
This study investigated the use of network meta-analysis (NMA) in providing clinicians with direct and indirect evidence when comparing multiple treatment options. Researchers analyzed 915 possible treatment combinations although 53% had no direct evidence. They concluded that the potential to provide more precise results only reliably occurs when at least two head-to-head studies are available and the treatments are well connected.
AHRQ-funded; HS024743.
Citation: Lin L, Xing A, Kofler MJ .
Borrowing of strength from indirect evidence in 40 network meta-analyses.
J Clin Epidemiol 2019 Feb;106:41-49. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.10.007..
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Health Services Research (HSR), Research Methodologies
Marshall IJ, Noel-Storr A, Kuiper J
Machine learning for identifying randomized controlled trials: an evaluation and practitioner's guide.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate machine learning models for RCT classification. Models were evaluated on an external dataset. The authors demonstrate that machine learning approaches are better able to discriminate between RCTs and non-RCTs than traditional database search filters, and also provide practical guidance on the role of machine learning in systematic reviews, and rapid reviews and clinical question answering as well as an open-source software.
AHRQ-funded; HS025024.
Citation: Marshall IJ, Noel-Storr A, Kuiper J .
Machine learning for identifying randomized controlled trials: an evaluation and practitioner's guide.
Res Synth Methods 2018 Dec;9(4):602-14. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1287..
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Health Services Research (HSR), Research Methodologies
Surian D, Dunn AG, Orenstein L
A shared latent space matrix factorisation method for recommending new trial evidence for systematic review updates.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate a new method to partially automate the identification of trial registrations that may be relevant for systematic review updates. After identifying 179 systematic reviews of drug interventions for type 2 diabetes, researchers tested a matrix factorization approach that ranks relevant trial registrations for each review. Text from the trial registrations were also used as features. These two approaches were tested on a holdout set of the newest trials. The authors conclude that this matrix was useful in ranking trial registrations and could be used as part of a semi-automated pipeline.
AHRQ-funded; HS024798.
Citation: Surian D, Dunn AG, Orenstein L .
A shared latent space matrix factorisation method for recommending new trial evidence for systematic review updates.
J Biomed Inform 2018 Mar;79:32-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2018.01.008..
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Health Services Research (HSR), Research Methodologies
Thorlacius L, Garg A, Ingram JR
Towards global consensus on core outcomes for hidradenitis suppurativa research: an update from the HISTORIC consensus meetings I and II.
This article describes the outcome of two in-person consensus meetings to create a core outcomes set (COS) for hidradenitis suppurative (HS) research. Forty-one individuals from 13 countries and 4 continents were included. The list of items discussed had been developed from patient interviews, a systematic literature review and a healthcare professional survey. Nine items were excluded and seven domains were approved which included: disease course, physical signs, HS-specific quality of life, satisfaction, symptoms, pain and global assessments.
AHRQ-funded; HS024585.
Citation: Thorlacius L, Garg A, Ingram JR .
Towards global consensus on core outcomes for hidradenitis suppurativa research: an update from the HISTORIC consensus meetings I and II.
Br J Dermatol 2018 Mar;178(3):715-21. doi: 10.1111/bjd.16093..
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Health Services Research (HSR), Outcomes, Research Methodologies, Skin Conditions
Ji X, Machiraju R, Ritter A
Visualizing article similarities via sparsified article network and map projection for systematic reviews.
In this study, the authors visualized article similarities to extend its utilization in practical settings for SR researchers, aiming to promote human comprehension of article distributions and hidden patterns. To prompt an effective visualization in an interpretable, intuitive, and scalable way, they implemented a graph-based network visualization with three network sparsification approaches and a distance-based map projection via dimensionality reduction.
AHRQ-funded; HS025047.
Citation: Ji X, Machiraju R, Ritter A .
Visualizing article similarities via sparsified article network and map projection for systematic reviews.
Stud Health Technol Inform 2017;245:422-26.
.
.
Keywords: Data, Evidence-Based Practice, Health Services Research (HSR), Research Methodologies
Mortensen ML, Adam GP, Trikalinos TA
An exploration of crowdsourcing citation screening for systematic reviews.
This study explored the use of crowdsourcing (distributing tasks to untrained workers via the web) to reduce the cost of screening citations. Crowdworkers completed screening in 4 to 17 days, costing $460 to $2220, a cost reduction of up to 88 percent compared to trained experts. Crowdsourcing may represent a useful approach to reducing the cost of identifying literature for systematic reviews.
AHRQ-funded; HS025024.
Citation: Mortensen ML, Adam GP, Trikalinos TA .
An exploration of crowdsourcing citation screening for systematic reviews.
Res Synth Methods 2017 Sep;8(3):366-86. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1252.
.
.
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Health Services Research (HSR), Research Methodologies
Berliner E
AHRQ Author: Berliner E
Multisociety letter to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: serious methodological flaws plague technology assessment on pain management injection therapies for low back pain.
The recent publication of an AHRQ report on Pain Management Injection Therapies for Low Back Pain has raised significant concerns for physicians who utilize injection procedures to treat patients suffering with pain and functional limitations resulting from spinal pathology. The authors are concerned that the methodology used by the report cannot and does not make such determinations, and that the conclusions may lead to egregious denial of access to these procedures for many patients suffering from low back pain.
AHRQ-authored.
Citation: Berliner E .
Multisociety letter to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: serious methodological flaws plague technology assessment on pain management injection therapies for low back pain.
Pain Med 2016 Jan;17(1):10-15. doi: 10.1111/pme.12934..
Keywords: Back Health and Pain, Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Evidence-Based Practice, Health Services Research (HSR), Pain, Research Methodologies
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.
The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol. This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement.
AHRQ-funded; 290200710059I.
Citation: Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M .
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.
BMJ 2015 Jan 2;349:g7647. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647..
Keywords: Research Methodologies, Health Services Research (HSR), Evidence-Based Practice
Guise JM, Chang C, Viswanathan M
AHRQ Author: Chang C, Berliner E
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center methods for systematically reviewing complex multicomponent health care interventions.
The purpose of this AHRQ EPC methods white paper was to outline approaches to conducting systematic reviews of complex multicomponent health care interventions. It provided a framework for synthesizing studies of multicomponent interventions and also provided an initial list of critical reporting elements for such studies in order to help systematic reviewers understand the options and tradeoffs available for such reviews.
AHRQ-authored; AHRQ-funded; 290201200010I; 290201200012I; 290201200011I; 290201200015I; 290201200008I; 290201200004C.
Citation: Guise JM, Chang C, Viswanathan M .
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center methods for systematically reviewing complex multicomponent health care interventions.
J Clin Epidemiol 2014 Nov;67(11):1181-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.010.
.
.
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Healthcare Delivery, Health Services Research (HSR), Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Research Methodologies
Jaana M, Vartak S, Ward MM
Evidence-based health care management: what is the research evidence available for health care managers?
The authors conducted a scoping review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine the availability and accessibility of evidence for health care managers. They found that 96.5% of their search results were not on target, and they suggested a better classification within PubMed to increase the accessibility of meaningful resources and to facilitate evidence retrieval. They recommended that health care journals take initiatives encouraging the publication of reviews in relevant management areas.
AHRQ-funded; HS018396.
Citation: Jaana M, Vartak S, Ward MM .
Evidence-based health care management: what is the research evidence available for health care managers?
Eval Health Prof 2014 Sep;37(3):314-34. doi: 10.1177/0163278713511325.
.
.
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Health Services Research (HSR), Research Methodologies