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
- Cancer (1)
- Cancer: Prostate Cancer (1)
- Comparative Effectiveness (9)
- Data (1)
- (-) Evidence-Based Practice (18)
- Guidelines (1)
- Healthcare Delivery (2)
- Health Services Research (HSR) (1)
- Implementation (1)
- Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) (1)
- Nursing (1)
- Patient-Centered Healthcare (1)
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (6)
- Patient Safety (1)
- Policy (2)
- Quality Measures (1)
- Quality of Care (1)
- (-) Research Methodologies (18)
- Screening (1)
- Shared Decision Making (4)
- U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) (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 18 of 18 Research Studies DisplayedHartling 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 D, Wu AW
Ethics review of survey research: a mandatory requirement for publication?
The authors provided guidance for journals to consider when making determinations about the necessity of ethical review for survey research projects. They stated that in situations where there is greater than minimal risk of informational or psychological harms, the survey research should have received institutional ethics oversight. They also specified that survey research projects that enroll vulnerable individuals with diminished autonomy should receive institutional ethics oversight.
AHRQ-funded; HS000029.
Citation: Whicher D, Wu AW .
Ethics review of survey research: a mandatory requirement for publication?
Patient 2015 Dec;8(6):477-82. doi: 10.1007/s40271-015-0141-0.
.
.
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Policy, Patient Safety, Research Methodologies
Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Ansari MT
Grading the strength of a body of evidence when assessing health care interventions: an EPC update.
The authors discussed the state of revision of 2010 guidance on grading the strength of evidence (SOE) of the effectiveness of drugs, devices, and other preventive and therapeutic interventions in systematic reviews produced by AHRQ's Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program. They concluded that EPC working groups will consider ongoing challenges and modify guidance as needed, on issues such as combining trials and observational studies in bodies of evidence, weighting domains, and combining qualitative and quantitative syntheses.
AHRQ-funded; 290200710056I.
Citation: Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Ansari MT .
Grading the strength of a body of evidence when assessing health care interventions: an EPC update.
J Clin Epidemiol 2015 Nov;68(11):1312-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.023.
.
.
Keywords: Comparative Effectiveness, Evidence-Based Practice, Quality of Care, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Research Methodologies
Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Ansari MT, et al.
AHRQ Author: Chang S
Grading the strength of a body of evidence when assessing health care interventions: an EPC update.
The purpose of this article is to revise the 2010 guidance on grading the strength of evidence (SOE) of the effectiveness of drugs, devices, and other preventive and therapeutic interventions produced by AHRQ’s Evidence-based Practice Center program. It concluded that no single approach for grading SOE suits all reviews, but a more consistent and transparent approach to reporting summary information will make reviews more useful.
AHRQ authored; AHRQ-funded 290200710056I
Citation: Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Ansari MT, et al..
Grading the strength of a body of evidence when assessing health care interventions: an EPC update.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Nov;68(11):1312-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.023..
Keywords: Comparative Effectiveness, Evidence-Based Practice, Research Methodologies, Quality Measures
Gephart SM
Fostering best practice: strategies for writing evidence-based practice briefs.
In this editorial, the author provides instructions to make the task of writing a brief manageable for even the newest of authors. From asking a compelling clinical question to telling the story of a critical appraisal of evidence to making recommendations, the overall goal of writing such a brief is to support best practice care in the neonatal intensive care unit.
AHRQ-funded; HS022908.
Citation: Gephart SM .
Fostering best practice: strategies for writing evidence-based practice briefs.
Adv Neonatal Care 2015 Oct;15(5):299-306. doi: 10.1097/anc.0000000000000222.
.
.
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Nursing, Research Methodologies, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU)
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
Polisena J, Garritty C, Umscheid CA
Rapid Review Summit: an overview and initiation of a research agenda.
This discussion paper highlights the important discussions that occurred during the Rapid Review Summit: Then, Now and in the Future, focusing on the initial development of a research agenda that resulted from the presentations and discussions. The research topics centered on three key areas of interest: (1) how to conduct a rapid review; (2) investigating the validity and utility of rapid reviews; and (3) how to improve access to rapid reviews.
AHRQ-funded; HS018987.
Citation: Polisena J, Garritty C, Umscheid CA .
Rapid Review Summit: an overview and initiation of a research agenda.
Syst Rev 2015 Sep 26;4:111. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0111-6.
.
.
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Healthcare Delivery, Policy, Research Methodologies
Proctor E, Luke D, Calhoun A
Sustainability of evidence-based healthcare: research agenda, methodological advances, and infrastructure support.
This project identifies the challenges associated with sustainability research and generates recommendations for accelerating and strengthening this work. Its recommendations fell into three domains: (1) pursue high priority research questions as a unified agenda on sustainability; (2) advance methods for sustainability research; (3) advance infrastructure to support sustainability research.
AHRQ-funded; HS020775.
Citation: Proctor E, Luke D, Calhoun A .
Sustainability of evidence-based healthcare: research agenda, methodological advances, and infrastructure support.
Implement Sci 2015 Jun 11;10:88. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0274-5..
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Healthcare Delivery, Implementation, Research Methodologies
Whicher D, Kass N, Faden R
Stakeholders' views of alternatives to prospective informed consent for minimal-risk pragmatic comparative effectiveness trials.
This paper reports on interviews with Institutional Review Board members and researchers and on focus groups with patients from Geisinger and Johns Hopkins health systems, with the objective of eliciting participants' views of the acceptability of four different disclosure and authorization models for low-risk pragmatic comparative effectiveness trials of widely-used therapies. Results suggested that many participants believed that it was acceptable to streamline information disclosure and to use an opt-out process for eligible individuals who would prefer not to participate.
AHRQ-funded; HS021064.
Citation: Whicher D, Kass N, Faden R .
Stakeholders' views of alternatives to prospective informed consent for minimal-risk pragmatic comparative effectiveness trials.
J Law Med Ethics 2015 Summer;43(2):397-409. doi: 10.1111/jlme.12256.
.
.
Keywords: Comparative Effectiveness, Evidence-Based Practice, 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
Cottrell EK, Whitlock EP, Kato E
AHRQ Author: Kato E
Defining the benefits and challenges of stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews.
The researchers examined the following questions: 1) what are the expected benefits of involving stakeholders in systematic reviews, and 2) what are the perceived challenges of involving stakeholders in systematic reviews? Using a literature scan and series of key informant interviews, they identified expected benefits such as establishing credibility and anticipating controversy. Challenges included time, training, resources and finding the right people.
AHRQ-authored; AHRQ-funded; 290201200004C
Citation: Cottrell EK, Whitlock EP, Kato E .
Defining the benefits and challenges of stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews.
Comp Eff Rev. 2015 Apr;5:13-19..
Keywords: Comparative Effectiveness, Evidence-Based Practice, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Research Methodologies
DeFrank JT, Barclay C, Sheridan S
The psychological harms of screening: the evidence we have versus the evidence we need.
The study’s purpose was to understand the extent of evidence on psychological harms. The researchers reviewed 68 studies and developed an evidence map that quantifies the distribution of evidence on psychological harms for five adult screening services. They found that the evidence for psychological harms of screening is inadequate in number of studies and in research design and measures.
AHRQ-funded; HS021133.
Citation: DeFrank JT, Barclay C, Sheridan S .
The psychological harms of screening: the evidence we have versus the evidence we need.
J Gen Intern Med 2015 Feb;30(2):242-8. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-2996-5..
Keywords: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Screening, Cancer: Prostate Cancer, Evidence-Based Practice, 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
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.
The aim of PRISMA-P 2015 is to improve the quality of systematic review protocols, similar to the impact achieved by other reporting guidelines. PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. This Statement paper summarizes the development of the guideline and presents the PRISMA-P checklist.
AHRQ-funded; 290200710059I.
Citation: Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M .
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.
Syst Rev 2015 Jan 1;4:1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1..
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Research Methodologies, Guidelines
Roberts AW, Dusetzina SB, Farley JF
Revisiting the washout period in the incident user study design: why 6-12 months may not be sufficient.
The purpose of this study was to describe how washout period duration affects the size and accuracy of retrospective incident user cohorts. It found that the 6- and 12-month washouts excluded 75 and 85% of the samples, respectively. Half of subjects in the 6-month washout cohorts were actually prevalent users, and the 12-month washout period resulted in 30% misclassified.
AHRQ-funded; HS000032.
Citation: Roberts AW, Dusetzina SB, Farley JF .
Revisiting the washout period in the incident user study design: why 6-12 months may not be sufficient.
J Comp Eff Res 2015 Jan;4(1):27-35. doi: 10.2217/cer.14.53..
Keywords: Comparative Effectiveness, Evidence-Based Practice, Research Methodologies
Gerber DE, Pruitt SL, Halm EA
Should criteria for inclusion in cancer clinical trials be expanded?
The authors argue that the time is right to take a more evidence-based approach to assessing the validity of many traditional exclusion criteria for cancer clinical trials. Furthermore, for investigators, it is critically important that their selection of inclusion and exclusion criteria be thoughtful, deliberate and justified. To accomplish this, they will need to use an array of methodological approaches to assess their validity and impact.
AHRQ-funded; HS022418.
Citation: Gerber DE, Pruitt SL, Halm EA .
Should criteria for inclusion in cancer clinical trials be expanded?
J Comp Eff Res 2015;4(4):289-91. doi: 10.2217/cer.15.27..
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Research Methodologies, Cancer, Comparative Effectiveness, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
Fleurence R, Whicher D, Dunham K
The Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute's role in advancing methods for Patient-centered Outcomes Research.
The authors described PCORI’s legislatively mandated Methodology Committee and its Methodology Report; discussed PCORI’s current slate of CER methods projects; and shared some initial thoughts about future areas where further methods development is needed.
AHRQ-funded; HS000029.
Citation: Fleurence R, Whicher D, Dunham K .
The Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute's role in advancing methods for Patient-centered Outcomes Research.
Med Care 2015 Jan;53(1):2-8. doi: 10.1097/mlr.0000000000000244.
.
.
Keywords: Comparative Effectiveness, Evidence-Based Practice, Patient-Centered Healthcare, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Research Methodologies