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
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 9 of 9 Research Studies DisplayedDjulbegovic B, Hozo I, Li SA
Certainty of evidence and intervention's benefits and harms are key determinants of guidelines' recommendations.
This study’s goal was to identify the key determinants of clinical guideline development. This study used a web-based survey of 12 panels of 153 “voting” members who issued 2941 recommendations and a qualitative analysis of 13 panels of 311 attendees. When intervention’s benefits outweigh harms compared with no recommendations: the probability of issuing strong recommendations in favor of intervention was 0.22 when certainty of evidence (CoE) was very low; 0.5 when low; 0.74 when moderate, and 0.85 when high. No other factor significantly affected recommendations. Panelists spent over 50% of their time debating CoE with the chairs and co-chairs dominating discussion.
AHRQ-funded; HS024917.
Citation: Djulbegovic B, Hozo I, Li SA .
Certainty of evidence and intervention's benefits and harms are key determinants of guidelines' recommendations.
J Clin Epidemiol 2021 Aug;136:1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.025..
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Guidelines, Research Methodologies, Shared Decision Making
Pigott T, Noyes J, Umscheid CA
AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 5: advanced analytic methods.
In this paper, the authors emphasize that the specific research question posed in the review should be used as a guide for choosing the appropriate analytic method. They present advanced analytic approaches that address some common questions that guide reviews of complex interventions such as: (1) How effective is the intervention? and (2) For whom does the intervention work and in what contexts?
AHRQ-funded; 290-2012-00004C; 290-2015-00005I; 290-2015-00004I; 290-2015-00009I; 290-2015-00013I; 290-2015-00011I; 290-2015-00003I.
Citation: Pigott T, Noyes J, Umscheid CA .
AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 5: advanced analytic methods.
J Clin Epidemiol 2017 Oct;90:37-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.015.
.
.
Keywords: Shared Decision Making, Evidence-Based Practice, Guidelines, Research Methodologies
Hartling L, Guise JM, Hempel S
AHRQ Author: Berliner E, Kato E
Fit for purpose: perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews.
There is increasing demand for rapid reviews and timely evidence synthesis. The goal of this project was to understand end-user perspectives on the utility and limitations of rapid products including evidence inventories, rapid responses, and rapid reviews. Key informants indicated that the credibility of the review producer, relevance of key questions, and close working relationship between the end-user and producer are critical for any rapid product.
AHRQ-authored.
Citation: Hartling L, Guise JM, Hempel S .
Fit for purpose: perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews.
Syst Rev 2017 Feb 17;6(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0425-7.
.
.
Keywords: Shared Decision Making, Evidence-Based Practice, Research Methodologies
Hartling L, Guise JM, Hempel S
AHRQ Author: Berliner E, Kato E
Fit for purpose: perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews.
There is increasing demand for rapid reviews and timely evidence synthesis. The goal of this project was to understand end-user perspectives on the utility and limitations of rapid products including evidence inventories, rapid responses, and rapid reviews. Key informants indicated that the credibility of the review producer, relevance of key questions, and close working relationship between the end-user and producer are critical for any rapid product.
AHRQ-authored.
Citation: Hartling L, Guise JM, Hempel S .
Fit for purpose: perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews.
Syst Rev 2017 Feb 17;6(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0425-7.
.
.
Keywords: Shared Decision Making, Evidence-Based Practice, Research Methodologies
Linder SK, Kamath GR, Pratt GF
Citation searches are more sensitive than keyword searches to identify studies using specific measurement instruments.
This study compared the effectiveness of two search methods in identifying studies that used the Control Preferences Scale (CPS), a health care decision-making instrument commonly used in clinical settings. It found that keyword searches in bibliographic databases yielded high average precision (90%) but low average sensitivity (16%). PubMed was the most precise, followed closely by Scopus and WOS.
AHRQ-funded; HS022134.
Citation: Linder SK, Kamath GR, Pratt GF .
Citation searches are more sensitive than keyword searches to identify studies using specific measurement instruments.
J Clin Epidemiol 2015 Apr;68(4):412-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.10.008..
Keywords: Research Methodologies, Shared Decision Making, Evidence-Based Practice
Hartling L, Guise JM, Kato E
AHRQ Author: Kato, E, Berliner E
A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts.
The researchers described characteristics of rapid reviews and examined the impact of methodological variations on their reliability and validity. They concluded that rapid products have tremendous methodological variation and that categorization based on timeframe or type of synthesis reveals patterns. The similarity across rapid products lies in the close relationship with the end user to meet time-sensitive decision-making needs.
AHRQ-authored; AHRQ-funded; 290201200013I; 290201200010I; 290201200011I; 290201200015I; 290201200007I; 290201200004C.
Citation: Hartling L, Guise JM, Kato E .
A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts.
J Clin Epidemiol 2015 Dec;68(12):1451-62.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.036.
.
.
Keywords: Shared Decision Making, Evidence-Based Practice, Data, Research Methodologies
Whicher DM, Miller JE, Dunham KM
Gatekeepers for pragmatic clinical trials.
The authors provided a framework to help guide gatekeepers' decision-making related to the use of resources for pragmatic clinical trials. They stated that recognition of the complex set of considerations that should inform decision-making will guide gatekeepers in making justifiable choices regarding the use of limited and valuable resources.
AHRQ-funded; HS000029.
Citation: Whicher DM, Miller JE, Dunham KM .
Gatekeepers for pragmatic clinical trials.
Clin Trials 2015 Oct;12(5):442-8. doi: 10.1177/1740774515597699.
.
.
Keywords: Shared Decision Making, Evidence-Based Practice, Comparative Effectiveness, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Research Methodologies
Carman KL, Mallery C, Maurer M
Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: results from a randomized trial.
The researchers conducted a 5-arm randomized controlled trial, assigning participants to one of four deliberative methods or to a reading materials only control group. They found that participating in deliberation increased participants' knowledge of evidence and comparative effectiveness research and shifted participants' attitudes regarding the role of evidence in decision-making.
AHRQ-funded; 290201000005C.
Citation: Carman KL, Mallery C, Maurer M .
Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: results from a randomized trial.
Soc Sci Med 2015 May;133:11-20. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.03.024..
Keywords: Comparative Effectiveness, Evidence-Based Practice, Research Methodologies, Shared Decision Making
Featherstone RM, Dryden DM, Foisy M
Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews.
This paper summarizes results, conclusions, and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews (RRs). RR definitions, methods, and applications vary substantially. Published review articles suggest that RRs should not be viewed as a substitute for a standard review, although they have unique value for decision-makers. Recommendations for RR producers include transparency of methods used and the development of reporting standards.
AHRQ-funded; 290201200004C; 290201200010I; 290201200011I; 290201200013I; 290201200015I.
Citation: Featherstone RM, Dryden DM, Foisy M .
Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews.
Syst Rev 2015 Apr 17;4:50. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4.
.
.
Keywords: Research Methodologies, Evidence-Based Practice, Shared Decision Making