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)
- Comparative Effectiveness (11)
- (-) Evidence-Based Practice (18)
- Guidelines (1)
- Healthcare Delivery (1)
- Health Services Research (HSR) (2)
- Outcomes (1)
- Patient-Centered Healthcare (2)
- (-) Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (18)
- Patient and Family Engagement (1)
- Primary Care (1)
- Quality of Care (1)
- (-) Research Methodologies (18)
- Shared Decision Making (1)
- Training (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 DisplayedCuthel A, Rogers E, Daniel F
Barriers and facilitators in the recruitment and retention of more than 250 small independent primary care practices for EvidenceNOW.
This study examined barriers and facilitators in the recruitment and retention of small independent practices (SIPs) to participate in research studies. The authors used qualitative data from the HealthyHearts New York City program, part of the EvidenceNOW initiative. This randomized controlled trial took place from 2015 through 2018 across 5 boroughs in NYC. A total of 257 SIPs (<5 full-time clinicians) were recruited originally. The three main factors that facilitated rapid recruitment were: 1) a prior well-established relationship with the local health department; 2) alignment of project goals with practice priorities, and 3) having appropriate monetary incentives. Specific strategies that enhance recruitment of SIPS and fills gaps in knowledge about factors that influence retention are identified.
AHRQ-funded; HS023922.
Citation: Cuthel A, Rogers E, Daniel F .
Barriers and facilitators in the recruitment and retention of more than 250 small independent primary care practices for EvidenceNOW.
Am J Med Qual 2020 Sep/Oct;35(5):388-96. doi: 10.1177/1062860619893422..
Keywords: Primary Care, Evidence-Based Practice, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 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
Byham-Gray LD, Peters EN, Rothpletz-Puglia P
Patient-centered model for protein-energy wasting: stakeholder deliberative panels.
Integrating the patient's voice into research prioritization is essential for solving problems that patients care the most about in terms of health, symptom management, and survival. In this study, the investigators used deliberative processes for adapting the existing model of protein-energy wasting (PEW) to one that included stakeholder priorities, addressing gaps from the initial concept.
AHRQ-funded; HS023434.
Citation: Byham-Gray LD, Peters EN, Rothpletz-Puglia P .
Patient-centered model for protein-energy wasting: stakeholder deliberative panels.
J Ren Nutr 2020 Mar;30(2):137-44. doi: 10.1053/j.jrn.2019.06.001..
Keywords: Patient-Centered Healthcare, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Evidence-Based Practice, Patient and Family Engagement, Research Methodologies
Butler M, Epstein RA, Totten A
AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 3: adapting frameworks to develop protocols.
This article identifies and describes elements of frameworks and how they can be adapted to inform the protocol and conduct of systematic reviews of complex interventions. Possible approaches to analytic frameworks for complex interventions that illustrate causal and associative linkages are outlined, including time elements, which systematic reviews of complex interventions may need to address.
AHRQ-funded; 290201200004C; 290201500008I; 290201500005I; 290201500006I; 290201500010I.
Citation: Butler M, Epstein RA, Totten A .
AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 3: adapting frameworks to develop protocols.
J Clin Epidemiol 2017 Oct;90:19-27. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.013.
.
.
Keywords: Comparative Effectiveness, Evidence-Based Practice, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Research Methodologies
Guise JM, Butler ME, Chang C
AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 6: PRISMA-CI extension statement and checklist.
This paper provides a stand-alone extension to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting tool for complex interventions-PRISMA-CI-to help authors, publishers, and readers understand and apply to systematic reviews of complex interventions. PRISMA-CI development followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research Network guidance for extensions and focused on adding or modifying only essential items.
AHRQ-funded; 290201200004C; 290201200016I; 290201500011I.
Citation: Guise JM, Butler ME, Chang C .
AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 6: PRISMA-CI extension statement and checklist.
J Clin Epidemiol 2017 Oct;90:43-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.016.
.
.
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Guidelines, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Research Methodologies
Braun D, Gorfine M, Parmigiani G
Propensity scores with misclassified treatment assignment: a likelihood-based adjustment.
The researchers show that misclassification of treatment assignment can impact three distinct stages of a propensity score analysis. They examine how error in the treatment assignment impacts each stage in the context of three common propensity score implementations: subclassification, matching, and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). They propose a two-step likelihood-based approach which fully adjusts for treatment misclassification bias under subclassification
AHRQ-funded; HS021991.
Citation: Braun D, Gorfine M, Parmigiani G .
Propensity scores with misclassified treatment assignment: a likelihood-based adjustment.
Biostatistics 2017 Oct 1;18(4):695-710. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxx014.
.
.
Keywords: Comparative Effectiveness, Evidence-Based Practice, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Research Methodologies
Landsittel DP, Kessler L, Schmid CH
Training in patient-centered outcomes research for specific researcher communities.
A number of publications have discussed approaches to training the scientific workforce in comparative effectiveness research (CER) and patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR). To extend these efforts into specific researcher communities, the AHRQ developed a Funding Opportunity Announcement that called for training for a specific researcher community in collaboration with associated program partners. This paper describes the strategies developed by the 5 subsequently funded programs, and the challenges associated with developing in-person and online programs.
AHRQ-funded; HS023214; HS023199; HS023299; HS023207; HS023185.
Citation: Landsittel DP, Kessler L, Schmid CH .
Training in patient-centered outcomes research for specific researcher communities.
J Clin Transl Sci 2017 Oct;1(5):278-84. doi: 10.1017/cts.2017.307.
.
.
Keywords: Comparative Effectiveness, Evidence-Based Practice, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Research Methodologies, Training
Kim MO, Wang X, Liu C
Random-effects meta-analysis for systematic reviews of phase I clinical trials: rare events and missing data.
The researchers use a systematic review of pediatric phase I oncology trials to illustrate the utility of advanced Bayesian analysis. Outcomes are rarely entirely missing in clinical trials. They utilize available information and conduct Bayesian incomplete data analysis. Their advanced Bayesian analyses, although illustrated with the specific example, are generally applicable.
AHRQ-funded; HS022437.
Citation: Kim MO, Wang X, Liu C .
Random-effects meta-analysis for systematic reviews of phase I clinical trials: rare events and missing data.
Res Synth Methods 2017 Jun;8(2):124-35. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1209.
.
.
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 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
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
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
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
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
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
Smith SR
AHRQ Author: Smith SR
Preface to the AHRQ supplement.
AHRQ, through its Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions about Effectiveness (DEcIDE) Research Network, sponsored this supplement to present various strategies in the design, analysis, and conduct of health outcomes studies relevant to rare diseases. The purpose of this supplement is to disseminate illustrative examples of research methods that can be applied to understand health outcomes and potentially to stimulate new patient-centered outcomes studies for rare diseases.
AHRQ-authored.
Citation: Smith SR .
Preface to the AHRQ supplement.
J Gen Intern Med 2014 Aug;29 Suppl 3:S712-3. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-2922-x.
.
.
Keywords: Comparative Effectiveness, Evidence-Based Practice, Outcomes, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Research Methodologies
Tugwell P, Boers M, D'Agostino MA
Updating the OMERACT filter: implications of filter 2.0 to select outcome instruments through assessment of "truth": content, face, and construct validity.
Two discussion groups critically reviewed the variety of ways in which five case studies of current OMERACT Working Groups complied with the ‘Truth’ component of the Filter and what issues remained to be resolved. The case studies showed that there is broad agreement on criteria for meeting the ‘Truth’ criteria through demonstration of content, face and construct validity; however several issues were identified that the Filter Working Group will need to address.
AHRQ-funded; HS013852
Citation: Tugwell P, Boers M, D'Agostino MA .
Updating the OMERACT filter: implications of filter 2.0 to select outcome instruments through assessment of "truth": content, face, and construct validity.
J Rheumatol. 2014 May;41(5):1000-4. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.131310..
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Research Methodologies
Buckley DI, Ansari MT, Butler M
AHRQ Author: Chang CS
The refinement of topics for systematic reviews: lessons and recommendations from the Effective Health Care Program.
AHRQ convened a work group to assess approaches and develop recommendations for topic refinement for the Effective Health Care Program. They concluded that accurate, rigorous, and useful systematic reviews require well-refined topics, and the work group's guiding principles and methodological recommendations may help investigators refine topics for reviews.
AHRQ-authored.
Citation: Buckley DI, Ansari MT, Butler M .
The refinement of topics for systematic reviews: lessons and recommendations from the Effective Health Care Program.
J Clin Epidemiol 2014 Apr;67(4):425-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.023.
.
.
Keywords: Comparative Effectiveness, Evidence-Based Practice, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Research Methodologies