Stakeholder priorities for comparative effectiveness research in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a workshop report.

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to address the expressed needs of patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders. Representatives of 54 stakeholder groups with an interest in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) participated in workshops convened by the COPD Outcomes-based Network for Clinical Effectiveness and Research Translation (CONCERT) over a 2-year period. Year 1 focused on chronic care and care coordination. Year 2 focused on acute care and transitions in care between healthcare settings. Discussions and provisional voting were conducted via teleconferences and e-mail exchanges before the workshop. Final prioritization votes occurred after in-person discussions at the workshop. We used a modified Delphi approach to facilitate discussions and consensus building. To more easily quantify preferences and to evaluate the internal consistency of rankings, the Analytic Hierarchy Process was incorporated in Year 2. Results of preworkshop and final workshop voting often differed, suggesting that prioritization efforts relying solely on requests for topics from stakeholder groups without in-person discussion may provide different research priorities. Research priorities varied across stakeholder groups, but generally focused on studies to evaluate different approaches to healthcare delivery (e.g., spirometry for diagnosis and treatment, integrated healthcare strategies during transitions in care) rather than head-to-head comparisons of medications. This research agenda may help to inform groups intending to respond to CER funding opportunities in COPD. The methodologies used, detailed in the online supplement, may also help to inform prioritization efforts for CER in other health conditions.

[1]  T. L. Saaty A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures , 1977 .

[2]  P. Boschetto,et al.  COPD guidelines: the important thing is not to stop questioning. , 2007, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[3]  P. Bach,et al.  How Medicare could use comparative effectiveness research in deciding on new coverage and reimbursement. , 2010, Health affairs.

[4]  W. Vollmer,et al.  Comparative effectiveness research in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. , 2012, Journal of comparative effectiveness research.

[5]  Sushil Kumar,et al.  Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[6]  T. Lieu,et al.  Comparative effectiveness research in lung diseases and sleep disorders: recommendations from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop. , 2011, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[7]  L. Akinbami,et al.  Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults aged 18 and over in the United States, 1998-2009. , 2011, NCHS data brief.

[8]  T. A. Lee,et al.  Prioritizing Comparative‐Effectiveness Research Topics via Stakeholder Involvement: An Application in COPD , 2011, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[9]  D. Mannino,et al.  Global burden of COPD: risk factors, prevalence, and future trends , 2007, The Lancet.

[10]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. , 1998, Health technology assessment.

[11]  R. Dubois,et al.  Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research: from assessing public health benefits to being open with the public. , 2011, Health affairs.

[12]  F. Collins,et al.  Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: The Intersection of Science and Health Care , 2010, Science Translational Medicine.