Effective Health Care Program Research Articles

Updated guidance from the agency for healthcare research and quality effective healthcare program on including nonrandomized studies of interventions in systematic reviews: a work in progress

The updated guidance from AHRQ is welcome and timely, given the increasing interest in using evidence from nonrandomized studies to evaluate health and social care interventions (NRSI) [1]. It is particularly heartening to read endorsement of recent insights both about the opportunities afforded by such studies and the potential pitfalls [2,3]. Of special note are recognition of the “three unique categories of bias” that arise before or at assignment to intervention or comparator status and which threaten the validity of NRSI [3] and the principle of using “study methods rather than study design labels to differentiate among NRSI types” [4].

Inclusion of nonrandomized studies of interventions in systematic reviews of interventions: updated guidance from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality Effective Health Care program

ObjectivesWe developed guidance to inform decisions regarding the inclusion of nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) in systematic reviews (SRs) of the effects of interventions. Study Design and SettingThe guidance workgroup comprised SR experts and used an informal consensus generation method. ResultsInstead of recommending NRSI inclusion only if randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are insufficient to address the SR key question, different topics may require different decisions regarding NRSI inclusion. We identified important considerations to inform such decisions from topic refinement through protocol development. During topic scoping and refinement, considerations were related to the clinical decisional dilemma, adequacy of RCTs to address the key questions, risk of bias in NRSIs, and the extent to which NRSIs are likely to complement RCTs. When NRSIs are included, during SR team formation, familiarity with topic-specific data sources and advanced analytic methods for NRSIs should be considered. During protocol development, the decision regarding NRSI inclusion or exclusion should be justified, and potential implications explained. When NRSIs are included, the protocol should describe the processes for synthesizing evidence from RCTs and NRSIs and determining the overall strength of evidence. ConclusionWe identified specific considerations for decisions regarding NRSI inclusion in SRs and highlight the importance of flexibility and transparency.

Prehospital Airway Management: A Systematic Review

Objective: To assess comparative benefits and harms across three airway management approaches (bag valve mask [BVM], supraglottic airway [SGA], and endotracheal intubation [ETI]) used by prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) to treat patients with trauma, cardiac arrest, or medical emergencies, and how they differ based on techniques and devices, EMS personnel and patient characteristics. Data sources: We searched electronic citation databases (Ovid® MEDLINE®, CINAHL®, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus®) from 1990 to September 2020. Review methods: We followed Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Effective Health Care Program Methods guidance. Outcomes included mortality, neurological function, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and successful advanced airway insertion. Meta-analyses using profile-likelihood random effects models were conducted, with analyses stratified by study design, emergency type, and age. Results: We included 99 studies involving 630,397 patients. We found few differences in primary outcomes across airway management approaches. For survival, there was no difference for BVM versus ETI or SGA in adult and pediatric patients with cardiac arrest or trauma. For neurological function, there was no difference for BVM versus ETI and SGA versus ETI in pediatric patients with cardiac arrest. There was no difference in BVM versus ETI in adults with cardiac arrest, but improved neurological function with BVM or ETI versus SGA. There was no difference in ROSC for patients with cardiac arrest for BVM versus ETI or SGA in adults and pediatrics, or SGA versus ETI in pediatrics. There was higher frequency of ROSC in adults with SGA versus ETI. For successful advanced airway insertion, there was higher first-pass success with SGA versus ETI for all patients except adult medical patients (no difference), and no difference in overall success using SGA versus ETI in adults. Conclusions: The currently available evidence does not indicate benefits of more invasive airway approaches based on survival, neurological function, ROSC, or successful airway insertion. Strength of evidence was low or moderate; most included studies were observational. This supports the need for high-quality randomized controlled trials to advance clinical practice and EMS education and policy, and improve patient-centered outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of neonatal surgery for congenital anomalies in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol

IntroductionCongenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of death in children under 5 years old globally (591 000 deaths reported in 2016). Over 95% of deaths occur in low-income and...

Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: an umbrella review.

The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and mortality in healthy adults or those at high risk of CVD. An umbrella review about primary prevention of non-pharmacological interventions was undertaken in key databases as PubMed Health, Effective Health Care Program AHRQ, McMaster University and the Cochrane Plus until July 2017. The primary outcomes were the relative risk of fatal and non-fatal CVD events, and mortality. Secondary outcomes were adverse events. Twenty-four reviews were included of which thirteen reported outcomes of interest. Four of these found a pooled statistically significant risk reduction: dietary supplements of vitamin D, increased consumption of omega 3 fatty acids, Qigong, and counselling or education to modify more than one cardiovascular risk factor. Seven studies reported adverse events but minor or insignificant with respect to the control group. Four non-pharmacological interventions have been shown to provide a statistically significant reduction in risk of CVD events or overall mortality, with minor adverse events if any. Further research should aim for higher methodological quality and longer follow-up of interventions to establish if these interventions, alone or in combination, translate into definite long-term health benefits.

Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1\u2014purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction

BackgroundOverviews of systematic reviews attempt to systematically retrieve and summarise the results of multiple systematic reviews. Methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews are in their infancy. To date, there has been no evidence map of the methods used in overviews, thus making it difficult to determine the gaps and priorities for methods research. Our objectives were to develop and populate a comprehensive framework of methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews (stage I) and to create an evidence map by mapping studies that have evaluated overview methods to the framework (stage II).MethodsWe searched methods collections (e.g. Cochrane Methodology Register, Meth4ReSyn library, AHRQ Effective Health Care Program) to identify eligible studies for both stages of this research. In stage I, cross-sectional studies, guidance documents and commentaries that described methods proposed for, or used in, overviews were used to develop and populate the framework of methods. Drafts and multiple iterations of the framework were discussed and refined by all authors. In stage II, we identified and described studies evaluating overview methods and mapped these evaluations to the framework.ResultsIn this paper, we present results for the four initial steps of conducting an overview: (a) specification of the purpose, objectives and scope, (b) specification of the eligibility criteria, (c) search methods and (d) data extraction. Twenty-nine studies mentioned or described methods relevant to one or more of these steps. In the developed framework, identified methods and approaches were grouped according to the steps an overview author would need to undertake. Fifteen studies evaluated identified methods, all of which mapped to the search methods step. These studies either reported the development and evaluation of a new search filter to retrieve systematic reviews or compared the performance of multiple filters.ConclusionGaps in the evaluation of methods were found for the majority of steps in the framework. More empirical studies are needed to evaluate the methods outlined and provide a comprehensive evidence map. The framework is useful for planning these evaluations and for planning methods required to deal with challenges that arise when conducting an overview.

Ability and Use of Comparative Effectiveness Research by P&T Committee Members and Support Staff: A 1-Year Follow-up.

In recent years, comparative effectiveness tools and methods have evolved to assist health care decision makers in identifying optimal therapies. In-person training programs on comparative effectiveness research may be helpful in understanding and applying this information. To provide a follow-up assessment of the use of comparative effectiveness research (CER) in the pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committee decision-making process, using information collected from participants 1 year after attending a live continuing education program, in which participants were taught about CER designs and how to access available CER resources through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Effective Health Care (EHC) Program. A retrospective, cross-sectional questionnaire was developed and mailed to 2 groups of individuals: CER workshop attendees and interested nonattendees (expressing an interest in attending a workshop but did not attend for unknown reasons). The questionnaire asked respondents to indicate personal and organizational use of CER in the decision-making process. Participants were asked to indicate whether their knowledge, ability, and use of CER studies increased since participating in the program. Data were analyzed using nonparametric tests to compare the responses of attendees and nonattendees, as well as overall reliability of the instrument. A total of 164 respondents completed the questionnaire (63 attendees and 101 nonattendees; overall response rate = 44%). The majority of respondents were pharmacists (n = 157, 95.7%) and were affiliated with a hospital (n = 106, 64.6%). Proportions of attendees and nonattendees differed significantly in the use of EHC research reviews/reports (45% and 28%, respectively; P = 0.02) and EHC executive summaries of research reviews/reports (48% and 29%, respectively; P = 0.01). At 1-year follow-up, the majority of attendees reported an increase ("somewhat" or "very much") in knowledge of CER (91.5%), ability to use CER (83.0%), and use of CER studies (58.7%). Health professionals attending a continuing education CER program reported higher use of EHC CER materials compared with nonattendees. Additionally, attendees reported increased use of CER in clinical decision making. A continuing education program such as this may provide an effective avenue for introducing CER methods and resources to the P&T committee and clinical decision-making processes. This project was supported by grant number R18HS019220 from the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality. Augustine has stock in Pfizer. The authors declared no other potential conflicts of interest associated with this study. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Malone, along with Warholak, Hines, Brown, Hurwitz, and Taylor. Warholak, Hines, Brown, Hurwitz, and Taylor collected the data, assisted by Malone, Brixner, Cobaugh, and Schlaifer. Data interpretation was performed by Malone and Augustine, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written primarily by Augustine, with assistance from Malone, Sun, Warholak, Hines, Brown, Hurwitz, and Taylor. Malone revised the manuscript, assisted by Warholak, Hines, Brown, Hurwitz, Taylor, Brixner, Cobaugh, and Schlaifer.

Evidence map of studies evaluating methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews of systematic reviews of interventions: rationale and design.

BackgroundOverviews of systematic reviews attempt to systematically retrieve and summarise the results of multiple systematic reviews into a single document. Methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews of reviews are in their infancy. To date, there has been no systematic review or evidence map examining the range of methods for overviews nor of the evidence for using these methods. The objectives of the study are to develop and populate a framework of methods that have or may be used in conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews of systematic reviews of interventions (stage I); create an evidence map of studies that have evaluated these methods (stage II); and identify and describe unique methodological challenges of overviews.MethodsThe research will be undertaken in two stages. For both stages, we plan to search methods collections (e.g. Cochrane Methodology Register, Meth4ReSyn library, AHRQ Effective Health Care Program) to identify eligible studies. These searches will be supplemented by searching reference lists and citation searching. Stage I: Methods used in overviews will be identified from articles describing methods for overviews, methods studies examining a cross section/cohort of overviews, guidance documents and commentaries. The identified methods will populate a framework of available methods for conducting an overview. Two reviewers will independently code included studies to develop the framework. Thematic analysis of the coded data will be used to categorise and describe methods. Stage II: Evaluations of the performance of methods will be identified from systematic reviews of methods studies and methods studies. Evaluations will be described and mapped to the framework of methods identified in stage I.DiscussionThe results of this process will be useful for mapping of methods for overviews of systematic reviews, informing guidance and identifying and prioritising method research in this field.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0178-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions.

Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions.

The value of including observational studies in systematic reviews was unclear: a descriptive study

ObjectivesTo evaluate (1) how often observational studies are included in comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs); (2) the rationale for including observational studies; (3) how data from observational studies are appraised, analyzed, and graded; and (4) the impact of observational studies on strength of evidence (SOE) and conclusions. Study Design and SettingDescriptive study of 23 CERs published through the Effective Health Care Program of the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. ResultsAuthors searched for observational studies in 20 CERs, of which 18 included a median of 11 (interquartile range, 2–31) studies. Sixteen CERs incorporated the observational studies in their SOE assessments. Seventy-eight comparisons from 12 CERs included evidence from both trials and observational studies; observational studies had an impact on SOE and conclusions for 19 (24%) comparisons. There was diversity across the CERs regarding decisions to include observational studies; study designs considered; and approaches used to appraise, synthesize, and grade SOE. ConclusionReporting and methods guidance are needed to ensure clarity and consistency in how observational studies are incorporated in CERs. It was not always clear that observational studies added value in light of the additional resources needed to search for, select, appraise, and analyze such studies.

Decision aids for advance care planning: an overview of the state of the science.

Advance care planning honors patients' goals and preferences for future care by creating a plan for when illness or injury impedes the ability to think or communicate about health decisions. Fewer than 50% of severely or terminally ill patients have an advance directive in their medical record, and physicians are accurate only about 65% of the time when predicting patient preferences for intensive care. Decision aids can support the advance care planning process by providing a structured approach to informing patients about care options and prompting them to document and communicate their preferences. This review, commissioned as a technical brief by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Effective Health Care Program, provides a broad overview of current use of and research related to decision aids for adult advance care planning. Using interviews of key informants and a search of the gray and published literature from January 1990 to May 2014, the authors found that many decision aids are widely available but are not assessed in the empirical literature. The 16 published studies testing decision aids as interventions for adult advance care planning found that most are proprietary or not publicly available. Some are constructed for the general population, whereas others address disease-specific conditions that have more predictable end-of-life scenarios and, therefore, more discrete choices. New decision aids should be designed that are responsive to diverse philosophical perspectives and flexible enough to change as patients gain experience with their personal illness courses. Future efforts should include further research, training of advance care planning facilitators, dissemination and access, and tapping potential opportunities in social media or other technologies.

Antidepressant Treatment of Depression During Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period.

To evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological therapy for depression in women during pregnancy or the postpartum period. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Scientific Information Packets from pharmaceutical manufacturers. Databases were searched from their inception to July 2013.. We included studies comparing pharmacological treatments for depression during or after pregnancy with each other, with nonpharmacological treatments, or with usual care or no treatment. Outcomes included both maternal and infant or child benefits and harms. Dual review was used for study inclusion, data abstraction, and quality assessment. We assessed study quality using methods of the Drug Effectiveness Review Project. We graded the strength of the body of evidence according to the methods of the Effective Health Care Program. Direct evidence comprised studies that compared interventions of interest in the population of interest (i.e., depressed women) and measured the outcomes of interest. Studies comparing groups of depressed women with control groups with no evidence of depression were considered indirect. We included 15 observational studies that provided direct evidence on benefits and harms of antidepressants for depression during pregnancy. We included six randomized controlled trials and two observational studies of antidepressant treatment for depression in postpartum women. Studies of depressed pregnant women primarily compared antidepressant treatment with no treatment, and studies of postpartum women also compared antidepressants alone with combination antidepressant-nonpharmacological treatments. This evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions on the comparative benefits or harms of antidepressants for the outcomes of maternal depression symptoms, functional capacity, breastfeeding, mother-infant dyad interactions, and infant and child development for either pregnant or postpartum women with depression. Low-strength evidence suggests that neonates of women with depression taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) during pregnancy had higher risk of respiratory distress than neonates of untreated women but that risk of preterm birth or neonatal convulsions does not differ between these groups. Direct evidence on the risk of major malformations and neonatal development with exposure to antidepressants in utero was insufficient to draw conclusions. For postpartum women with depression, evidence was insufficient to evaluate the full range of benefits and harms of treatment. Low-strength evidence was unable to show a benefit of adding brief psychotherapy or cognitive behavioral therapy to SSRIs. Evidence about the comparative benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment of depression in pregnant and postpartum women was largely inadequate to allow well-informed decisions about treatment. For pregnant women, this was mainly because comparison groups were not exclusively depressed women. For postpartum women, the lack of evidence arose chiefly from a scarcity of studies. These are major limitations, as depression is known to be associated with serious adverse outcomes. Given the prevalence of depression and its impact on the lives of pregnant women, new mothers, and children, new research to fill this informational gap is essential.

The refinement of topics for systematic reviews: lessons and recommendations from the Effective Health Care Program

ObjectivesThe Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Effective Health Care Program conducts systematic reviews of health-care topics nominated by stakeholders. Topics undergo refinement to ensure relevant questions of appropriate scope and useful reviews. Input from key informants, experts, and a literature scan informs changes in the nominated topic. AHRQ convened a work group to assess approaches and develop recommendations for topic refinement. Study Design and SettingWork group members experienced in topic refinement generated a list of questions and guiding principles relevant to the refinement process. They discussed each issue and reached agreement on recommendations. ResultsTopics should address important health-care questions or dilemmas, consider stakeholder priorities and values, reflect the state of the science, and be consistent with systematic review research methods. Guiding principles of topic refinement are fidelity to the nomination, relevance, research feasibility, responsiveness to stakeholder inputs, reduced investigator bias, transparency, and suitable scope. Suggestions for stakeholder engagement, synthesis of input, and reporting are discussed. Refinement decisions require judgment and balancing guiding principles. Variability in topics precludes a prescriptive approach. ConclusionAccurate, rigorous, and useful systematic reviews require well-refined topics. These guiding principles and methodological recommendations may help investigators refine topics for reviews.

Community Forum Deliberative Methods Demonstration: Evaluating Effectiveness and Eliciting Public Views on Use of Evidence - Final Report

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Community Forum, initiated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), has as its goal to improve and expand public and stakeholder engagement in AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program. A primary area of focus for the Community Forum is to advance methods for obtaining input from the general public. This report describes the results of the Deliberative Methods Demonstration, a randomized controlled trial comparing deliberative methods with one another and with a control intervention. The primary aims of the Demonstration were to: • Inform AHRQ research programs on public views regarding the use of research evidence in health care decisionmaking by obtaining informed public input on questions regarding appropriate and acceptable ways to use evidence that are central to the mission of AHRQ’s research programs. • Expand the evidence base on public deliberation by evaluating whether public deliberation is an effective and useful way to obtain informed public input for U.S. health care research, as well as identifying a feasible set of choices among deliberative methods.

Supporting informed decision making when clinical evidence and conventional wisdom collide: papers developed from the Eisenberg Center Conference Series 2012

AHRQ involvement in exploring issues that impact clinical decision making The AHRQ Effective Health Care (EHC) Program was created in 2003 under the legislative provisions of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA). The EHC Program supports individual researchers, research centers, and academic organizations working together with AHRQ to produce effectiveness and comparative effectiveness research for various audiences (http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov). The EHC Program does this through: 1) reviewing and synthesizing published and unpublished scientific evidence; 2) generating new scientific evidence and analytic tools; and 3) compiling research findings that are synthesized and/or generated and translating these materials into useful formats for clinicians, consumers, and policymakers. Much of the work focusing on translation and dissemination of research findings is done through the John M. Eisenberg Center for Clinical Decisions and Communications Science (the Eisenberg Center), a specialized Center within the EHC Program charged with working in concert with other EHC Program components to organize research results into summaries and other tools that are useful to clinicians, healthcare policy makers, and patients. An important function of the Eisenberg Center involves planning and implementing the Eisenberg Conference Series. This series brings together experts in health communication, health literacy, shared decisionmaking, and related fields to produce white papers (and stakeholder commentaries) that explore developments and advances in the fields of clinical decisionmaking and health communication. The papers from the 2012 Conference Series are assembled here as a supplement in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

Health care decision makers' use of comparative effectiveness research: report from a series of focus groups.

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is a helpful approach to improve health outcomes by developing and disseminating evidence-based information to patients, clinicians, and other decision makers about the most effective interventions. To (a) identify the factors necessary to increase the use of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) CER reviews in hospitals and managed care organizations; (b) assess current awareness and implementation of CER materials in these facilities and organizations; and (c) inform development of content for a workshop on CER. Pharmacy and therapeutics (PT) committee members and supportive personnel were recruited to participate in focus groups conducted at national health professional meetings. Prior to the sessions, each participant completed a prefocus group questionnaire evaluating the organization and process of the respondent's PT committee, as well as the respondent's role in the PT committee and awareness of AHRQ CER reports. Each session consisted of a focused discussion about CER and sources of evidence for PT monographs, and each participant completed a ballot to rank topics of importance for inclusion in a CER workshop for health care professionals involved in the PT process. Overarching themes were later identified using qualitative analysis of the transcripts of the focus group sessions. Thirty-nine (68%) pharmacists and 18 (32%) physicians involved in the PT process participated in 1 of 7 focus groups. Almost half of the participants had 6-15 years experience with the PT process. Participants represented health plans, hospitals, and health care systems. Two-thirds indicated they were aware of AHRQ's Effective Health Care Program's CER reviews, yet only 26% reported using the reviews in their organizations. The overarching themes reflected the need for timely and conclusive CER information; the role of the pharmacist as central to evidence synthesis for the PT process; and the need for educational programs in online formats that are designed primarily for pharmacists. Health care decision makers identified timeliness as a key factor for facilitating the use of AHRQ CER reviews and guides in hospitals and managed care organizations. To facilitate integration of CER into the decision-making process, it is imperative that key stakeholders have access to comprehensive and timely information. While the majority of participants indicated that they were aware of AHRQ CER reviews, few had used them in the PT process.

015 Tracking the Impact of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s (AHRQ) Effective Health Care Program through Uptake by Clinical Practice Guideline and Quality Measure Developers

BackgroundPublic and private funders evaluate health care investments in terms of outcomes and accountability. Citation analysis can approximate the dissemination and impact of funded research outputs.ObjectivesUse references in guidelines and...

High Priority Future Research Needs for Obstructive Sleep Apnea Diagnosis and Treatment

To identify and prioritize future research needs (FRN) topics for diagnosis and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Twenty-one panel members represented six stake-holder categories: patients and the public, providers; purchasers of health care, payers, policymakers, and principal investigators. Building on a recently completed comparative effectiveness review, stakeholders nominated and discussed potential FRN topics. Stakeholders then nominated their top priority FRN topics based on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Effective Health Care Program Selection Criteria. From these nominations, the highest priority FRN topics were determined and were elaborated upon to include possible study designs to address the topics. Thirty-seven topics were discussed and prioritized. The nine highest priority FRN topics included: cost-effectiveness of management strategies, defining age- and sex-specific criteria for OSA, evaluating routine preoperative screening for OSA, evaluating involvement of a sleep medicine specialist in diagnosis of OSA, evaluating clinical prediction rules, assessing the effect of treating sleep disordered breathing and long-term clinical outcomes, comparing treatments for patients who do not tolerate positive airway pressure, evaluating strategies to improve treatment compliance, and evaluating the association between sleep apnea severity and long-term clinical outcomes. While there are numerous specific research questions with low or insufficient strength of evidence for OSA management, OSA patients, their healthcare providers, and society at large would benefit from refocusing research efforts into the prioritized research questions and away from simple comparisons of short-term outcomes between specific interventions.

Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews in Cardiovascular Disease

Comparative effectiveness reviews offer a systematic method to critically appraise existing research and to identify unaddressed clinical areas in cardiovascular disease where significant morbidity, mortality, and variation in the use of resources persist. To delineate and help select areas where comparative effectiveness reviews are needed, the Effective Health Care Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality involved stakeholders in prioritization of the research agenda. We involved a diverse panel of stakeholders representing a broad range of clinical, policy, and patient perspectives. To assist in prioritization of topics for evidence synthesis, we created a framework evaluating 12 cardiovascular disease subcategories that reflect American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association disease-based guidelines. We performed an environmental scan for each disease subcategory to populate this framework with existing knowledge, levels of evidence, and degrees of public interest. Through a formalized process, 4 disease subcategories were prioritized: chronic coronary artery disease, ventricular arrhythmias, heart failure, and cerebrovascular disease. Within these subcategories, 11 topics that address the comparative safety and effectiveness of existing treatments and evaluate emerging treatments were nominated by the stakeholder panel to proceed for feasibility assessment before developing comparative effectiveness reviews. Using a systematic process deriving consensus from multiple stakeholders across cardiovascular disease states, we generated a prioritized list of evidence synthesis topics to inform decision makers. The topics vetted through this process seek to determine the comparative safety and effectiveness of a range of treatments, both established and emerging, and are immediately relevant for prevalent disease states.

Community Forum Deliberative Methods Demonstration: Evaluating Effectiveness and Eliciting Public Views on Use of Evidence - Executive Summary

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Community Forum, initiated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), has as its goal to improve and expand public and stakeholder engagement in AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program. A primary area of focus for the Community Forum is to advance methods for obtaining input from the general public. The report describes the results of the Deliberative Methods Demonstration, a randomized controlled trial comparing deliberative methods with one another and with a control intervention. The primary aims of the Demonstration were to: • Inform AHRQ research programs on public views regarding the use of research evidence in health care decisionmaking by obtaining informed public input on questions regarding appropriate and acceptable ways to use evidence that are central to the mission of AHRQ’s research programs. • Expand the evidence base on public deliberation by evaluating whether public deliberation is an effective and useful way to obtain informed public input for U.S. health care research, as well as identifying a feasible set of choices among deliberative methods.