Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: methods.

Decision makers want to know which healthcare services matter the most, but there are no well-established, practical methods for providing evidence-based answers to such questions. Led by the National Commission on Prevention Priorities, the authors update the methods for determining the relative health impact and economic value of clinical preventive services. Using new studies, new preventive service recommendations, and improved methods, the authors present a new ranking of clinical preventive services in the companion article. The original ranking and methods were published in this journal in 2001. The current methods report focuses on evidence collection for a priority setting exercise, guidance for which is effectively lacking in the literature. The authors describe their own standards for searching, tracking, and abstracting literature for priority setting. The authors also summarize their methods for making valid comparisons across different services. This report should be useful to those who want to understand additional detail about how the ranking was developed or who want to adapt the methods for their own purposes.

[1]  Gordon H. Guyatt,et al.  Users' guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. , 1993, JAMA.

[2]  G H Guyatt,et al.  USERS' GUIDES TO THE MEDICAL LITERATURE. II: HOW TO USE AN ARTICLE ABOUT THERAPY OR PREVENTION A. ARE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY VALID ? , 1993 .

[3]  Jeffrey R. Harris,et al.  Priorities among recommended clinical preventive services. , 2001, American journal of preventive medicine.

[4]  Gordon H. Guyatt,et al.  How to Use an Article About Therapy or Prevention , 1995 .

[5]  Jeffrey R. Harris,et al.  Methods for priority setting among clinical preventive services. , 2001, American journal of preventive medicine.

[6]  Richard Birtwhistle,et al.  Pragmatic controlled clinical trials in primary care: the struggle between external and internal validity. , 2003, BMC medical research methodology.

[7]  L. Solberg,et al.  Colorectal cancer screening: health impact and cost effectiveness. , 2006, American journal of preventive medicine.

[8]  F. Song,et al.  Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. , 2003, Health technology assessment.

[9]  M. Gold Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine , 2016 .

[10]  L. Solberg,et al.  Repeated tobacco-use screening and intervention in clinical practice: health impact and cost effectiveness. , 2006, American journal of preventive medicine.

[11]  M K Slack,et al.  Establishing the internal and external validity of experimental studies. , 2001, American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

[12]  K. Lohr,et al.  Assessing "best evidence": issues in grading the quality of studies for systematic reviews. , 1999, The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement.

[13]  M. Gold,et al.  Using the years-of-healthy-life measure to calculate QALYs. , 2001, American journal of preventive medicine.

[14]  D. Holtgrave Extending the methodology of the Committee on Clinical Preventive Service Priorities to HIV-prevention community planning. , 2002, American journal of preventive medicine.

[15]  P. Briss,et al.  Data collection instrument and procedure for systematic reviews in the Guide to Community Preventive Services. Task Force on Community Preventive Services. , 2000, American journal of preventive medicine.

[16]  C. Mulrow,et al.  Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. , 2001, American journal of preventive medicine.

[17]  P. Briss,et al.  Methods for systematic reviews of economic evaluations for the Guide to Community Preventive Services. Task Force on Community Preventive Services. , 2000, American journal of preventive medicine.

[18]  L. Solberg,et al.  Influenza vaccination health impact and cost effectiveness among adults aged 50 to 64 and 65 and older. , 2006, American journal of preventive medicine.

[19]  Thomas M Vogt,et al.  The Prevention Index: using technology to improve quality assessment. , 2004, Health services research.