Evidence Gaps in Advanced Cancer Care: Community-Based Clinicians' Perspectives and Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research

Lowry et al. (2012) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

advanced cancer care

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

North America - USA

Why was it conducted at all?

Although much effort has focused on identifying national CER priorities, little is known about the comparative effectiveness research (CER) priorities of community-based practitioners treating advanced cancer patients. CER priorities of managed-care based clinicians may be valuable as reflections of both payer and provider research interests.

What was the objective?

to understand health professionals' knowledge and perceptions of comparative effectiveness research and pragmatic clinical trials and what evidence they wish they had when treating advanced cancer patients

What was the outcome?

a list of 3 research areas

How long did the research prioritization take?

No information provided.

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?

interview

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: interviews: participants were asked about relevance of CER to patient and health plan decision-making, self-reported likelihood of changing practice or advocating for health plan policy change based on evidence from various types of studies, asking about what evidence participants wished they had when treating patients with advanced cancer and about what CER studies or PCTs they felt were the most important to conduct at this time for patients with advanced lung, colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer. Step 2: data processing: thematic analysis

Which stakeholders took part?

Oncologists, pharmacists. 10 participants.

How were stakeholders recruited?

Participants were selected for the study based on their roles as clinical leaders at each HMORN site; most were the heads of their respective practices or lead pharmacists, and all had a major role in decision-making in their departments.

Were stakeholders actively involved or did they just participate?

Stakeholders were mere participants of the research prioritization process; they were not actively involved in the process.