scholarly journals The Protean Role of Health Care Delivery Organizations in Comparative Effectiveness Research

2009 ◽  
Vol 84 (12) ◽  
pp. 1062-1064 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew L. Masica ◽  
David J. Ballard
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Delivery ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Effectiveness Research

scholarly journals Building Data Infrastructure to Evaluate and Improve Quality: PCORnet

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 204-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas A. Corley ◽  
Heather Spencer Feigelson ◽  
Tracy A. Lieu ◽  
Elizabeth A. McGlynn
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Delivery ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Delivery Systems ◽  
Effectiveness Research ◽  
Improve Quality ◽  
Data Infrastructure ◽  
Health Care Delivery Systems

The goal of PCORnet is to create a community of research that includes patients, clinicians, and health care delivery systems to improve the nation's ability to conduct comparative-effectiveness research.

Randomized Controlled Trials and Comparative Effectiveness Research

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34) ◽  
pp. 4194-4201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olwen M. Hahn ◽  
Richard L. Schilsky
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Health Care Research ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Effectiveness Research ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been promoted as a way to improve the translation gap between clinical research and everyday clinical practice as well as to deliver more cost-effective health care. CER will account for a significant portion of funding allocated by the US government for health care research. Oncology has a rich history of improving clinical outcomes and advancing research through randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In this article, we review the role of RCTs in achieving the goals of CER, with particular emphasis on the role of publicly funded clinical trials.

scholarly journals The Pragmatist's Guide to Comparative Effectiveness Research

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 27-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amitabh Chandra ◽  
Anupam B Jena ◽  
Jonathan S Skinner
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Proton Beam Therapy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Effectiveness Research ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

Following an acrimonious health care reform debate involving charges of “death panels,” in 2010, Congress explicitly forbade the use of cost-effectiveness analysis in government programs of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In this context, comparative effectiveness research emerged as an alternative strategy to understand better what works in health care. Put simply, comparative effectiveness research compares the efficacy of two or more diagnostic tests, treatments, or health care delivery methods without any explicit consideration of costs. To economists, the omission of costs from an assessment might seem nonsensical, but we argue that comparative effectiveness research still holds promise. First, it sidesteps one problem facing cost-effectiveness analysis—the widespread political resistance to the idea of using prices in health care. Second, there is little or no evidence on comparative effectiveness for a vast array of treatments: for example, we don't know whether proton-beam therapy, a very expensive treatment for prostate cancer (which requires building a cyclotron and a facility the size of a football field) offers any advantage over conventional approaches. Most drug studies compare new drugs to placebos, rather than “head-to-head” with other drugs on the market, leaving a vacuum as to which drug works best. Finally, the comparative effectiveness research can prove a useful first step even in the absence of cost information if it provides key estimates of treatment effects. After all, such effects are typically expensive to determine and require years or even decades of data. Costs are much easier to measure, and can be appended at a later date as financial Armageddon draws closer.

Embodied Spatial Practices and the Power to Care

2019 ◽  
pp. 360-377
Author(s):  
Elise Paradis ◽  
Warren Mark Liew ◽  
Myles Leslie
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Critical Care ◽  
Health Care Delivery ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Ethnographic Study ◽  
Spatial Practices ◽  
Critical Care Units ◽  
Interprofessional Care ◽  
The Social

Drawing on an ethnographic study of teamwork in critical care units (CCUs), this chapter applies Henri Lefebvre’s ([1974] 1991) theoretical insights to an analysis of clinicians’ and patients’ embodied spatial practices. Lefebvre’s triadic framework of conceived, lived, and perceived spaces draws attention to the role of bodies in the production and negotiation of power relations among nurses, physicians, and patients within the CCU. Three ethnographic vignettes—“The Fight,” “The Parade,” and “The Plan”—explore how embodied spatial practices underlie the complexities of health care delivery, making visible the hidden narratives of conformity and resistance that characterize interprofessional care hierarchies. The social orderings of bodies in space are consequential: seeing them is the first step in redressing them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document