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
- Behavioral Health (2)
- Cancer (1)
- Cancer: Prostate Cancer (1)
- Children/Adolescents (1)
- Comparative Effectiveness (18)
- Data (1)
- Decision Making (4)
- Depression (1)
- (-) Evidence-Based Practice (40)
- Guidelines (5)
- Healthcare Delivery (4)
- Health Services Research (HSR) (6)
- Implementation (3)
- Medicare (1)
- Medication (1)
- Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) (1)
- Nursing (1)
- Outcomes (1)
- Patient-Centered Healthcare (2)
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (13)
- Patient and Family Engagement (1)
- Patient Safety (1)
- Policy (4)
- Prevention (1)
- Primary Care (2)
- Quality Measures (1)
- Quality of Care (1)
- (-) Research Methodologies (40)
- Screening (1)
- U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) (2)
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 25 of 40 Research Studies DisplayedCallejo-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
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.
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
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
Riggs K, Richman J, Kertesz S
Trial design for ineffectiveness research: a mixed-methods survey.
High-quality research demonstrating a lack of effectiveness may facilitate the 'de-adoption' of ineffective health services. However, there has been little debate on the optimal design for ineffectiveness research-studies exploring the research hypothesis that an intervention is ineffective. The aim of this study was to explore investigators' preferences for trial design for ineffectiveness research. The investigators conducted a mixed-methods online survey with principle investigators identified from clinicaltrials.gov.
AHRQ-funded; HS023009.
Citation: Riggs K, Richman J, Kertesz S .
Trial design for ineffectiveness research: a mixed-methods survey.
BMJ Evid Based Med 2020 Aug;25(4):143-44. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111276..
Keywords: Research Methodologies, Comparative Effectiveness, Evidence-Based Practice
Lin D, Lapen K, Sherer MV
A systematic review of contouring guidelines in radiation oncology: analysis of frequency, methodology, and delivery of consensus recommendations.
Clinical trials have described variation in radiation therapy plan quality, of which contour delineation is a key component, and linked this to inferior patient outcomes. In response, consensus guidelines have been developed to standardize contour delineation. This investigation assessed trends in contouring guidelines and examined the methodologies used to generate and deliver recommendations. The investigators concluded that this review highlighted an increase in consensus contouring recommendations over time.
AHRQ-funded; HS026881.
Citation: Lin D, Lapen K, Sherer MV .
A systematic review of contouring guidelines in radiation oncology: analysis of frequency, methodology, and delivery of consensus recommendations.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020 Jul 15;107(4):827-35. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.04.011..
Keywords: Guidelines, Evidence-Based Practice, Research Methodologies
Thomas LE, Yang S, Wojdyla D
Matching with time-dependent treatments: a review and look forward.
Observational studies of treatment effects attempt to mimic a randomized experiment by balancing the covariate distribution in treated and control groups, thus removing biases related to measured confounders. In this paper, the authors define a class of longitudinal matching methods and provide a review of existing variations, with guidance regarding study design, execution, and analysis. They identify avenues for future research and highlight the relevance of this methodology to high-quality comparative effectiveness studies in the era of big data.
AHRQ-funded; HS24310.
Citation: Thomas LE, Yang S, Wojdyla D .
Matching with time-dependent treatments: a review and look forward.
Stat Med 2020 Jul;39(17):2350-70. doi: 10.1002/sim.8533..
Keywords: Research Methodologies, Evidence-Based Practice, Comparative Effectiveness
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
Krist AH, Barry MJ, Wolff TA
AHRQ Author: Wolff TA, Fan TM
Evolution of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's methods.
In this commentary on an article appearing in the same issue, the authors stated that the methods used by the USPSTF deliberately set a high bar for making evidence-based recommendations. They indicated that consumers of preventive service guidelines need to know concretely what is known and unknown and further need confidence that what is being recommended is not influenced by economic or political pressures or by professional opinion with a limited evidence basis.
AHRQ-authored.
Citation: Krist AH, Barry MJ, Wolff TA .
Evolution of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's methods.
Am J Prev Med 2020 Mar;58(3):332-35. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.11.003..
Keywords: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Guidelines, Evidence-Based Practice, Prevention, Research Methodologies
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
Gaynes BN, Lux L, Gartlehner G
Defining treatment-resistant depression.
The authors conducted a review for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and AHRQ to clarify how experts and investigators have defined treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and to review systematically how well this definition comports with TRD definitions in clinical trials through July 5, 2019. They found that no consensus definition existed for TRD. While depressive outcomes and clinical global impressions were commonly measured, functional impairment and quality-of-life tools were rarely used. They recommend stronger approaches to designing and conducting TRD research in order to foster better evidence to translate into clearer guidelines for treating patients with TRD.
AHRQ-funded; 290201500011I.
Citation: Gaynes BN, Lux L, Gartlehner G .
Defining treatment-resistant depression.
Depress Anxiety 2020 Feb;37(2):134-45. doi: 10.1002/da.22968..
Keywords: Depression, Behavioral Health, Evidence-Based Practice, Implementation, Research Methodologies
Lin L, Shi L, Chu H
The magnitude of small-study effects in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an empirical study of nearly 30 000 meta-analyses.
The authors’ goal was to provide rules of thumb for interpreting measures to quantify small-study effects' magnitude. They used six measures to evaluate small-study effects in 29,932 meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. They presented the empirical distributions of the six measures and proposed a rough guide to interpret the measures' magnitude. They suggested that their proposed rules of thumb may help evidence users grade the certainty in evidence as impacted by small-study effects.
AHRQ-funded; HS024743.
Citation: Lin L, Shi L, Chu H .
The magnitude of small-study effects in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an empirical study of nearly 30 000 meta-analyses.
BMJ Evid Based Med 2020 Feb;25(1):27-32. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111191..
Keywords: Research Methodologies, 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: 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, 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
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
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: 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, 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, 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