Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Research Articles

Using a Patient-Centered Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Assess the Value of Multiple Sclerosis Treatments in the US: A Study Protocol.

The engagement of patients and family caregivers in value assessment is pivotal since they provide valuable contributions to assessment acceptability and relevance. The proposed study aims to use patient-centered techniques and multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to evaluate the values of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) from the perspectives of patients and family caregivers living in three 'Deep South' States of the US-Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. This study will follow guidance from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) for patient engagement and two best practice reports for MCDA from the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) to complete value assessment. Throughout the study, we will engage multiple stakeholders, including patients, family caregivers,healthcare providers, and payers. Forty patients with MS and their family caregivers from Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi will be invited to participate in this study. We will intensively train them for value assessment knowledge and MCDA before we engage them in MCDA to determine the value of DMTs for MS. Our approach differs from common MCDA since we incorporated a patient-centered framework in this study. Unlikeprevious studies only briefly inform or prepare participants before the MCDA process, in this study, we will provide basicvalue assessment trainings forpatients and family caregivers to ensure they can effectively engage throughout the patient-centeredMCDAprocess. We expect this study will demonstrate that the patient-centered MCDA approach is feasible and likely leads to improved patients' and family caregivers' engagementin value assessment.

Using a Patient-Centered Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Assess the Value of Multiple Sclerosis Treatments in the US: A Study Protocol.

The engagement of patients and family caregivers in value assessment is pivotal since they provide valuable contributions to assessment acceptability and relevance. The proposed study aims to use patient-centered techniques and multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to evaluate the values of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) from the perspectives of patients and family caregivers living in three 'Deep South' States of the US-Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. This study will follow guidance from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) for patient engagement and two best practice reports for MCDA from the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) to complete value assessment. Throughout the study, we will engage multiple stakeholders, including patients, family caregivers,healthcare providers, and payers. Forty patients with MS and their family caregivers from Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi will be invited to participate in this study. We will intensively train them for value assessment knowledge and MCDA before we engage them in MCDA to determine the value of DMTs for MS. Our approach differs from common MCDA since we incorporated a patient-centered framework in this study. Unlikeprevious studies only briefly inform or prepare participants before the MCDA process, in this study, we will provide basicvalue assessment trainings forpatients and family caregivers to ensure they can effectively engage throughout the patient-centeredMCDAprocess. We expect this study will demonstrate that the patient-centered MCDA approach is feasible and likely leads to improved patients' and family caregivers' engagementin value assessment.

The Tennessee Heart Health Network effectiveness study: A stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of statewide quality improvement cooperative participation on cardiovascular outcomes

BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) is the primary cause of premature morbidity and mortality in the United States and Tennessee ranks among the highest in CVD events. While patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) evidence-based approaches that reach beyond the traditional doctor-patient visit hold promise to improve CVD care and prevent serious complications, most primary care providers lack time, knowledge, and infrastructure to implement these proven approaches. Statewide primary care quality improvement (QI) collaboratives hold potential to help address primary care needs, however, little is known regarding their effectiveness in improving uptake of PCOR evidence-based population health approaches and improving CVD outcomes. This study describes the design and implementation of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of participation in a statewide quality improvement cooperative (The Tennessee Heart Health Network [TN-HHN]) on cardiovascular outcomes. Methods/designThe TN-HHN Effectiveness Study randomized 77 practices to 4 waves (i.e., clusters), with each wave beginning three months after the start of the prior wave and lasting for 18 months. All practice clusters received one of three Network interventions, and outcomes are measured for each three months both in the control phase and the intervention phase. Primary outcomes include Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services measures for aspirin use, blood pressure control, cholesterol control, and smoking cessation (ABCS). ConclusionsThis trial, upon its conclusion, will allow us to assess the effect of participation in a statewide quality improvement cooperative on cardiovascular outcomes as well as key contributors to successful practice transformation.

Experiences of underrepresented adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors engaging in research-related activities.

10073 Background: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors are an age-defined cohort (15-39 years at diagnosis) confronting unique biopsychosocial needs throughout their cancer experience. Underrepresented (sexual and gender minority [SGM] and/or Black, Indigenous, and People of Color [BIPOC]) AYAs face additional challenges associated with discrimination, mistrust of providers, and culturally incongruent services. As a result, many underrepresented AYAs experience suboptimal oncological care and disparate outcomes when compared to cis-gendered heterosexual and/or white peers. This study explored the experiences of underrepresented AYA cancer survivors engaging in research-related activities. Methods: This study is part of a larger Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)-funded project that is evaluating multilevel facilitators and barriers to oncological care and research for underrepresented AYA cancer survivors. With support from five academic cancer centers and five community-based organizations supporting AYAs across the US, we have assembled an intersectional community advisory panel (CAP) of 10 AYAs who identify as BIPOC and/or SGM. Together with the CAP, a semistructured interview guide was developed, and from January to February 2024, we conducted video interviews. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis of verbatim transcribed interview scripts. The CAP assisted the investigative team in the analyses and interpretation of data. Results: Of the 20 participants interviewed, roughly 70% identified as BIPOC, 40% as SGM, and 10% as both BIPOC and SGM. Participants included underrepresented AYA cancer survivors who, prior to this specific study, had or had not participated in cancer-related research. Three major themes affecting underrepresented AYAs and engagement in research-related activities were discovered, and included: 1) Layering of identities, culture, and stigma; 2) The role of trusted conduits in facilitating engagement; and 3) Beyond compensation: reasons of pursuance. Conclusions: The resultant themes illuminate multilevel facilitators and barriers to research engagement among underrepresented AYA cancer survivors. Findings will assist in guiding researchers, oncology care providers and program administrators both in academic and community settings in the design of inclusive and equitable cancer care delivery programs for underrepresented AYA cancer survivors.

Race and ethnicity and pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes

Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors (SGLT2i) and Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RA) improve cardiorenal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. Equitable use of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA has the potential to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities. We evaluated trends in pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA by race and ethnicity. Retrospective cohort study of patients (≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes using 2014-2022 electronic health record data from six US care delivery systems. Entry was at earliest pharmacy dispensing of any type 2 diabetes medication. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2i and GLP1-RA and race and ethnicity. Our cohort included 687,165 patients (median 6 years of dispensing data; median 60 years; 0.3% American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN), 16.6% Asian, 10.5% Black, 1.4% Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (HPI), 31.1% Hispanic, 3.8% Other, and 36.3% White). SGLT2i was lower for AI/AN (OR 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.68-0.94), Black (0.89, 0.86-0.92) and Hispanic (0.87, 0.85-0.89) compared to White patients. GLP-1 RA was lower for AI/AN (0.78, 0.63-0.97), Asian (0.50, 0.48-0.53), Black (0.86, 0.83-0.90), HPI (0.52, 0.46-0.57), Hispanic (0.69, 0.66-0.71), and Other (0.78, 0.73-0.83) compared to White patients. Dispensing of SGLT2is, and GLP-1 RAs was lower in minority group patients. There is a need to evaluate approaches to increase use of these cardiorenal protective drugs in patients from racial and ethnic minority groups with type 2 diabetes to reduce adverse cardiorenal outcomes and improve health equity. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and National Institutes of Health.

Abstract PO4-13-04: Added Value from Patient Advocates in a Translational Working Group: the COMET Study

Abstract Introduction: A phase III multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial called “Comparing an Operation to Monitoring, with or without Endocrine Therapy (COMET)” (NCT02926911) assesses the risks/benefits of active monitoring (AM) versus surgery for women with low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). It is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and enrolled 997 women between 06/30/17 and 01/13/23. Research Patient Advocates (PAs) have been embedded from the study design stage and continue to provide guidance as part of the COMET leadership team. The COMET biobank is funded by independent foundations and is managed through monthly Translational Working Group (TWG) meetings. The TWG includes PAs, clinicians, pathologists, radiologists, and researchers from multiple institutions who discuss topics like categorization of biospecimens into discovery/validation sets; development of a pathology workflow/sample tracking process; use of small samples; and potential areas of future research/technologies that may improve DCIS diagnostics, prognostics, and care management. Methods: The TWG leveraged the existing Alliance Foundation Trials, LLC biobank infrastructure and facilitates the collection, submission, storage and analysis/use of blood, tissue, and breast images collected at specified timepoints and stored in central tissue/image repositories. PAs are active and integral in the TWG, assisting with logistical issues (contracts, transfer agreements, resource requests); communicating with sites; identifying study topics and biomarkers relevant to diverse patients; providing guidance on commercial predictive/prognostic tests; promoting effective stewardship of samples; ensuring overall focus remains on advancing clinical utility; and reporting translational study results to trial participants who agreed to donate samples/images. Results: Over 90% of requested samples/images have been submitted by ˃85 sites. Each patient’s biospecimens and pathology images are linked and de-identified for research. Use of artificial intelligence (AI) is being considered to assist in sample review. TWG members have complementary areas of expertise/experience and promote active stewardship for effective management of these scarce resources. PAs have played key roles concerning equitable data-sharing and acceleration of data and material transfer agreements. They have also been active in development of standards for discovery/training sets, validation test sets; communication procedures for patient cases that progress to future breast events; ways to catalog technologies (e.g., multi-omics, AI); and in research proposal review. Consensus has been achieved regarding major issues such as authorship, biospecimen custodianship, intellectual property, and criteria relevant to patient needs. Logistical barriers, including data sharing and technicalities of biospecimen release, have been resolved. The TWG also played an integral role in resolving recruitment challenges to COMET by creating standard pathology eligibility criteria, resulting in evidence-based protocol amendments that increased accrual. A retrospective review of biospecimens has been performed to determine adequacy for ensuing correlative molecular and spatial profiling studies. Conclusion: PAs help the COMET TWG set policy, and oversee biospecimen/image collection, and biobank use and sharing. PA input also facilitates equitable, transparent research studies and technology development that can improve personalized decisions for surgery versus AM in women with low-risk DCIS. PAs in the TWG aim to integrate the diagnostic and prognostic tools developed as part of the COMET study into future patient care. Citation Format: Deborah Collyar, Desiree Basila, Thomas Lynch, Stuart Schnitt, Jeffrey Marks, Siri Strand, Terry Hyslop, Sunil Badve, Mark Watson, H. T. Carisa Le-Petross, Lars Grimm, Robert West, Anna Weiss, Anna Rapperport, Lorraine King, Rachel Factor, Marc Ryser, Ann Partridge, E Shelley Hwang, Alastair Thompson. Added Value from Patient Advocates in a Translational Working Group: the COMET Study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO4-13-04.

Improving Data Infrastructure for Person-Centered Outcomes Research on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) continue to experience disparities in health and well-being despite improved provisions of person-centered care. Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) translates evidence into practice for meaningful outcomes. This piece describes findings from an environmental scan and stakeholder outreach to identify and prioritize opportunities to enhance IDD PCOR data infrastructure. These opportunities include developing a standardized research definition; advancing data standards for service systems; improving capture of IDD at point of care; developing standardized outcome measures; and encouraging Medicaid data use for IDD research. Within this piece, we discuss the implications of addressing data gaps for enhanced research. While the identified activities provide a path towards advancing IDD PCOR data infrastructure, collaborative efforts between government, researchers, and others are paramount.

Abstract 1302: Development and implementation of a systematic approach to measure patient-reported outcomes in early-phase cancer trials

Abstract Background: There has been a shift in the clinical trial landscape toward early-phase studies where data from well-designed and pivotal phase I/II trials is leading to accelerated drug approval. Our goal was to develop a standardized approach to the measurement and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in early-phase trials to improve assessment of tolerability, address noted barriers to inclusion, and enhance patient-provider communication to inform treatment decisions and ultimately improve outcomes. Methods: The Office of Patient Centered Outcomes Research (OPCORe) was established in 2022 within the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) with the mission to advance understanding of the clinical benefit and tolerability of cancer therapies by integrating patient-centered approaches into CCR clinical trials by fostering education and collaboration with stakeholders. Implementation of regulatory/consortia guidelines related to use of core constructs, assessment frequency, and hypothesis-driven objectives and analysis plans through protocol template, development of data capture, email-based alerts and data visualization for clinical providers was developed and standardized templates for protocol language, research staff education, tools for workflow, and tracking implemented. Results: The OPCORe protocol template includes measurement of 3 constructs, including tolerability, clinical benefit and disease-specific impact, as well as anchors of meaningful change. Core symptomatic toxicities are measured to inform understanding across trials with agent/class-specific symptomatic toxicities added to assure relevance. Baseline and standardized weekly electronic capture of tolerability during early cycles with alerts to clinical research staff if moderate-severe toxicities reported helps facilitate patient check-ins. Repeat PROs assessments in later cycles are expanded to include disease-specific assessments and align with disease evaluation to further inform clinical impact. To date, we have collaborated with 7 research groups and developed approaches for first-in-human, phase I, and phase II studies with trial start-up and data collection in process. Conclusion: The value of including PROs in cancer trials is increasingly recognized by regulators, clinicians, patients, and advocates to advance understanding of the clinical benefit & tolerability of emerging therapies. Standardization and incorporation of PROs in earlier phase trials may enable PROs to be optimized, improve later phase trial design, and help inform health policy, support drug approval, and promote shared decision making between providers and patients to inform treatment decisions. Citation Format: Amanda L. King, Jason E. Levine, Elizabeth Vera, Yuti Gandhi, Elaine Novakovich, Theresa Yu, Sefanit Berhanu, Ciara Locke, Kaelyn Julmeus, Tito Mendoza, Terri S. Armstrong. Development and implementation of a systematic approach to measure patient-reported outcomes in early-phase cancer trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 1302.

An Overview of the Methodology Used to Develop Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Acute and Intraoperative Spinal Cord Injury.

An overview of the methods used to develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Acute spinal cord injury (SCI) and intraoperative SCI (ISCI) can have devastating physical and psychological consequences for patients and their families. To date, there are several studies that have discussed the diagnostic and management strategies for both SCI and ISCI. CPGs in SCI help to distill and translate the current evidence into actionable recommendations, standardize care across centers, optimize patient outcomes, and reduce costs and unnecessary interventions. Furthermore, they can be used by patients to assist in making decisions about certain treatments and by policy makers to inform allocation of resources. The objective of this article is to summarize the methods used to develop CPGs for the timing of surgery and hemodynamic management of acute SCI, as well as the identification and treatment of ISCI. The CPGs were developed using standards established by the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine), the Guideline International Network and several other organizations. Systematic reviews were conducted according to accepted methodological standards (eg, Institute of Medicine, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute) in order to summarize the current body of evidence and inform the guideline development process. Protocols for each guideline were created. A multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG) was formed that included individuals living with SCI as well as clinicians from the broad range of specialties that encounter patients with SCI: spine or trauma surgeons, critical care physicians, rehabilitation specialists, neurologists, anesthesiologists and other healthcare professionals. Individuals living with SCI were also included in the GDG. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of the evidence for each critical outcome. The "evidence to recommendation" framework was then used to translate the evidence obtained from the systematic review to an actionable recommendation. This framework provides structure when assessing the body of evidence and considers several additional factors when rating the strength of the recommendation, including the magnitude of benefits and harms, patient preferences, resource use, health equities, acceptability and feasibility. Finally, the CPGs were appraised both internally and externally. The results of the CPGs for SCI are provided in separate articles in this focus issue. Development of these CPGs for SCI followed the methodology proposed by the Institute of Medicine the Guideline International Network and the GRADE Working Group. It is anticipated that these CPGs will assist clinicians implement the best evidence into practice and facilitate shared-decision making with patients.

Raising the Bar for Real-World Data in Oncology: Approaches to Quality Across Multiple Dimensions.

Electronic health record (EHR)-based real-world data (RWD) are integral to oncology research, and understanding fitness for use is critical for data users. Complexity of data sources and curation methods necessitate transparency into how quality is approached. We describe the application of data quality dimensions in curating EHR-derived oncology RWD. A targeted review was conducted to summarize data quality dimensions in frameworks published by the European Medicines Agency, The National Institute for Healthcare and Excellence, US Food and Drug Administration, Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. We then characterized quality processes applied to curation of Flatiron Health RWD, which originate from EHRs of a nationwide network of academic and community cancer clinics, across the summarized quality dimensions. The primary quality dimensions across frameworks were relevance (including subdimensions of availability, sufficiency, and representativeness) and reliability (including subdimensions of accuracy, completeness, provenance, and timeliness). Flatiron Health RWD quality processes were aligned to each dimension. Relevancy to broad or specific use cases is optimized through data set size and variable breadth and depth. Accuracy is addressed using validation approaches, such as comparison with external or internal reference standards or indirect benchmarking, and verification checks for conformance, consistency, and plausibility, selected on the basis of feasibility and criticality of the variable to the intended use case. Completeness is assessed against expected source documentation; provenance by recording data transformation, management procedures, and auditable metadata; and timeliness by setting refresh frequency to minimize data lags. Development of high-quality, scaled, EHR-based RWD requires integration of systematic processes across the data lifecycle. Approaches to quality are optimized through knowledge of data sources, curation processes, and use case needs. By addressing quality dimensions from published frameworks, Flatiron Health RWD enable transparency in determining fitness for real-world evidence generation.

Comparative effectiveness of azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil for myasthenia gravis (PROMISE-MG): a prospective cohort study

Myasthenia gravis is an autoimmune disorder of the neuromuscular junction. Treatment typically includes symptomatic oral cholinesterase inhibitors, immunosuppression, and immunomodulation. In addition to corticosteroids, azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil are the most frequently used immunosuppressants in North America. We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of these two drugs, and to assess the effect of the dose and duration of treatment. We did a prospective cohort study at 19 academic centres in Canada and the USA. We included patients (aged ≥18 years) with autoimmune myasthenia gravis, who were never treated with immunosuppressants. Treating clinicians determined the choice of medication, dose, follow-up intervals, and drug monitoring. Outcome measures and adverse events were recorded at each visit. We assessed two co-primary outcomes. The first was the patient-reported Myasthenia Gravis-Quality of Life 15-revised (MGQOL-15r) score, measured as the mean change from treatment initiation to the follow-up visit with the lowest score. A clinically meaningful reduction (CMR) in MGQOL-15r was defined as a 5-point decrease. The second was a composite clinical outcome of disease improvement (Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America Post-Intervention Status Minimal Manifestations or better) and low adverse event burden (defined as grade ≤1 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). We also compared these outcomes in patients receiving an adequate dose and duration of azathioprine (≥2 mg/kg per day for at least 12 months) or mycophenolate mofetil (≥2 g per day for at least 8 months) and a lower dose or shorter duration of these agents. We used propensity score weighting with generalised linear regression models. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03490539). Between May 1, 2018, and Aug 31, 2020, 167 patients were enrolled; 85 did not receive azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil and were excluded. Four were excluded from outcome analyses because they had scores of 0 on an outcome measure at treatment initiation. Of the 78 patients included in analyses, 47 received mycophenolate mofetil (median follow-up 25 months [IQR 13·5-31·5]) and 31 received azathioprine (median follow-up 20 months [IQR 13-30]). The mean change in MG-QOL15r was -10·4 (95% CI -18·9 to -1·3) with mycophenolate mofetil and -6·8 (-17·2 to 3·6) with azathioprine (mean difference -3·3, 95% CI -7·7 to 1·2; p=0·15). 38 (81%) of 47 patients receiving mycophenolate mofetil and 18 (57%) of 31 receiving azathioprine had a CMR in MG-QOL15r (risk difference 24·0%; 95% CI -0·2 to 48·0; p=0·052). The clinical composite outcome was achieved in 22 (47·7%) of 47 patients who received mycophenolate mofetil and nine (28·1%) of 31 who received azathioprine (risk difference 19·6%, 95% CI -4·9 to 44·2; p=0·12). Descriptive analysis did not find a difference in the proportion of patients reaching a CMR in MG-QOL15r between the adequate dose and duration group and the lower dose or shorter duration group. Adverse events occurred in 11 (32%) of 34 patients who received azathioprine and nine (19%) of 48 who received mycophenolate mofetil. The most frequent adverse events were hepatotoxicity with azathioprine (five [15%] of 34) and gastrointestinal disturbances (seven [15%] of 48) with mycophenolate mofetil. There were no study-related deaths. More than half of patients treated with azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil felt their quality of life improved; no difference in clinical outcomes was noted between the two drugs. Adverse events associated with azathioprine were potentially more serious than those with mycophenolate mofetil, although mycophenolate mofetil is teratogenic. Lower than recommended doses of azathioprine might be effective, with reduced dose-dependent adverse events. More comparative effectiveness studies are required to inform treatment choices in myasthenia gravis. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America.

Navigating the path of progress: The OMERACT 2023 emerging leaders program

ObjectivesThe Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) Emerging Leaders Program (ELP) aims to cultivate a cohort of skilled leaders within the OMERACT community empowering them with expertise and knowledge to help shape and steer the organization into the future. This publication highlights the significance of the ELP in driving leadership excellence, its impact on OMERACT's evolution, and the outcomes and learnings from the OMERACT 2023 ELP. MethodsInsights from the 2018 ELP report informed 2023 program improvements. Engagement was measured by attendance and WhatsApp interactions. Positive program aspects, areas for improvement and ideas for enhancing future ELPs were captured via anonymous survey and participant focus groups. ResultsEngagement with the ELP was high with 9 participants, 96 % attendance at all workshops, 154 WhatsApp interactions. All program components were highly rated, with the highest being the ‘Psychological Safety’ and ‘Methodology/Process/Politics’ workshops. Future enhancements included creating further networking, connection and support activities, practical leadership and methodological skill development opportunities, and a new stream focussing on organisational advancement. ConclusionsThe 2023 OMERACT ELP was well received and successfully addressed areas previously identified as requiring improvement. New educational enhancements were valued, and the importance of fostering psychological safety at all levels was highlighted. The ELP fortifies OMERACT by nurturing a diverse array of skilled leaders who embody OMERACTs core values. Continuing to refine and evolve the ELP over time will help OMERACT sustain its global influence in patient-centered outcome research.

Patient-centered research in pediatric transplant: Engaging families and recipients

Pediatric liver transplant (LT) recipients navigate a lifelong journey that includes constant monitoring and challenges. Research priorities and questions in LT have traditionally been provider-driven. This project was a novel partnership between a learning health system dedicated to pediatric LT (Starzl Network for Excellence in Pediatric Transplantation) and a parent-led advocacy group (Transplant Families) that aimed to prepare families and providers for collaborative patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR). We developed 5 virtual modules to (1) teach participants about PCOR, and (2) elicit ideas for PCOR priorities and processes in pediatric LT. Parents and providers participated via self-guided online modules or focus groups. Participants included 240 patient partners and 133 pediatric LT providers from 16 centers over 2 years. We held 20 focus groups, including 5 to amplify underrepresented voices: young adults, Spanish speakers, and African Americans. Feedback was summarized to create a PCOR Roadmap, a guide for future PCOR in the Starzl Network, which was disseminated back to participants online and via webinars. Feedback from a diverse group of stakeholders allowed us to develop PCOR priorities and processes for the pediatric LT community. Our engagement strategies could be adapted by other transplant communities to facilitate patient and provider research partnerships.

Advanced and alternative research methods for the acute care surgeon scientist

Clinical research has evolved significantly over the last few decades to include many advanced and alternative study designs to answer unique questions. Recognizing a potential knowledge gap, the AAST Associate...

Building Statewide Quality Improvement Capacity to Improve Cardiovascular Care and Health Equity: Lessons from the Tennessee Heart Health Network

Many states with high rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) lack statewide quality improvement (QI) infrastructure (for example, resources, leadership, community) to address relevant health needs of the population. Academic health centers are well positioned to play a central role in addressing this deficiency. This article describes early experience and lessons learned in building statewide QI infrastructure through the Tennessee Heart Health Network (Network). A statewide, multistakeholder network composed of primary care practices (PCPs), health systems, health plans, QI organizations, patients, and academic institutions was led by the University of Tennessee Health Science Center (UTHSC), an academic health center, to improve cardiovascular health by supporting dissemination and implementation of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) evidence-based interventions in primary care. PCPs were required to select and implement at least one of three interventions (health coaching, tailored health-related text messaging, and pharmacist-physician collaboration). Thirty statewide organizational partners joined the Network in year one, including 18 health systems representing 77 PCPs (30.0% of 257 potentially eligible PCPs identified) with approximately 300,000 patients. The organizational partners share EHRs for the ongoing tracking and reporting of key health metrics, including hypertension control and delivery of tobacco cessation counseling. Of the 77 PCPs, 62 continue participation after year two (80.5% retention). Main barriers to participation and reasons for discontinuing participation included reluctance to share data and changes in leadership at the health system level. These 62 PCPs selected the following interventions to implement: health coaching (41.9%), tailored health-related text messages (48.4%), and pharmacist-physician collaboration (40.3%). Academic health centers have broad reach and high acceptability by diverse stakeholders. Tennessee's experience illustrates how academic health centers can serve as platforms for building a statewide infrastructure for disseminating, implementing, and sustaining QI interventions at the practice level. Assessment of Network impact is ongoing.

Skin Antisepsis before Surgical Fixation of Extremity Fractures

BackgroundStudies evaluating surgical-site infection have had conflicting results with respect to the use of alcohol solutions containing iodine povacrylex or chlorhexidine gluconate as skin antisepsis before surgery to repair a fractured limb (i.e., an extremity fracture).MethodsIn a cluster-randomized, crossover trial at 25 hospitals in the United States and Canada, we randomly assigned hospitals to use a solution of 0.7% iodine povacrylex in 74% isopropyl alcohol (iodine group) or 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol (chlorhexidine group) as preoperative antisepsis for surgical procedures to repair extremity fractures. Every 2 months, the hospitals alternated interventions. Separate populations of patients with either open or closed fractures were enrolled and included in the analysis. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection, which included superficial incisional infection within 30 days or deep incisional or organ-space infection within 90 days. The secondary outcome was unplanned reoperation for fracture-healing complications.ResultsA total of 6785 patients with a closed fracture and 1700 patients with an open fracture were included in the trial. In the closed-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 77 patients (2.4%) in the iodine group and in 108 patients (3.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.00; P=0.049). In the open-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 54 patients (6.5%) in the iodine group and in 60 patients (7.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odd ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.27; P=0.45). The frequencies of unplanned reoperation, 1-year outcomes, and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsAmong patients with closed extremity fractures, skin antisepsis with iodine povacrylex in alcohol resulted in fewer surgical-site infections than antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol. In patients with open fractures, the results were similar in the two groups. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; PREPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03523962.)

Making progress against rare cancers: A case study on neuroendocrine tumors.

In April 2023, the National Cancer Institute offered a roadmap for cancer research to achieve Cancer Moonshot goals. To reach these goals requires making progress for all cancers, not just those that are most common. Achieving progress against rare cancers, as well as common cancers, requires involvement of large clinical research networks. In 2020, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) launched an initiative on Conducting Rare Disease Research using PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. The purpose of this commentary is to introduce the broader community of cancer researchers to the PCORnet NET-PRO study (comparing the effects of different treatment approaches for neuroendocrine tumors on patient-reported outcomes) thereby demonstrating how researchers can use the PCORnet infrastructure to conduct large-scale patient-centered studies of rare cancers.

How Do Consumers Interact with Digital Expert Advice? Experimental Evidence from Health Insurance

Consumers increasingly use digital advice when making purchasing decisions. How do such tools change consumer behavior and what types of consumers are likely to use them? We examine these questions with a randomized controlled trial of digital expert advice in the context of prescription drug insurance. The intervention we study was effective at changing consumer choices. We propose that, conceptually, expert advice can affect consumer choices through two distinct channels: by updating consumer beliefs about product features (learning) and by influencing how much consumers value product features (interpretation). Using our trial data to estimate a model of consumer demand, we find that both channels are quantitatively important. Digital expert advice tools not only provide consumers with information, but also alter how consumers value product features. For example, consumers are willing to pay 14% less for a plan with the most popular brand and 37% less for an extra star rating when they incorporate digital expert advice on plan choice relative to only having information about product features. Further, we document substantial selection into the use of digital advice on two margins. Consumers who are inherently less active shoppers and those who we predict would have responded to advice more were less likely to demand it. Our results raise concerns regarding the ability of digital advice to alter consumer preferences as well as the distributional implications of greater access to digital expert advice. This paper was accepted by Stefan Scholtes, healthcare management. Funding: This work was supported by the National Institute on Aging [Grant K01AG059843] and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute [Grant CDR-1306-03598]. The project also received financial support from Stanford Innovation Funds. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.02453 .

Engaging patients and stakeholders to identify a research agenda to support social determinants of health (SDOH) screening and intervention initiatives in community pharmacy

Community pharmacists can play a vital role in supporting the nation’s effort to address patients’ social needs at a scalable, system-wide level. However, evidence is scarce related to the acceptability, and effectiveness of existing programs that administer social determinants of health (SDOH) screening and referral interventions. The Pharmacy Quality Alliance and National Patient Advocate Foundation convened a multistakeholder panel consisting of patient and pharmacy stakeholders in 2022 to develop a patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) agenda for community pharmacies. Guided by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute’s Engagement Rubric, the series of three workshops sought to amplify the patient voice throughout the process. Identified priorities include research to support the development of infrastructure required to incorporate SDOH screening and intervention programs into existing workflows; defining the feasibility of screening and interventions in the community pharmacy setting; and understanding patient perception and preferences on communication strategies, educational outreach efforts, and appropriate handling of sensitive information related to social needs. Pharmacy stakeholders emphasized the importance of generating evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of programs to support the development of reimbursement strategies aimed at the long-term sustainability of effective programs. Developing patient and community collaborations and integrating efforts with other healthcare professionals is going to be vital to minimize care fragmentation and maximize the healthcare system’s overall ability to address patients’ social needs. Future research efforts should examine the impact of multisectoral collaboration to address patients’ social needs, patient experience with the interventions, and the effectiveness of the interventions themselves.

BUILDING BRIDGES AND CATALYZING RESEARCH FOR EVIDENCE-BASED INFECTION CONTROL: PROJECT ECHO FOR NURSING HOMES

Abstract Nursing homes were ill-equipped for the pandemic; though facilities are required to have infection control staff, only 3% have taken a basic infection control course. Significant research has focused on infection control in the acute care setting; however, little is known about the implementation of infection control practices in long-term care communities. In this symposium, we will describe findings from the Project ECHO for Nursing Homes- a national, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded study. First, Dr. Kraschnewski will present over all study findings from the stratified, cluster randomized controlled trial of 136 nursing homes that participated in up to 33 weeks of best-practice training to improve COVID-19 infection control practices. Next, Dr. Calo will present on implementation outcomes at 6-months including readiness for change and the implementation climate in the NH. Next, Ms. Heilbrunn will discuss the impacts of implementing evidence-based infection control practices through COVID-19 on NH residents’ well-being. Finally, Dr. Behrens will describe NH leadership perspectives (n=14) on preparing and maintaining care quality during times of diminishing resources. Data presented in this symposium can guide NHs in strategies to implement evidence-based infection control in their homes and informs researchers who are looking to implement similar implementation studies in the NH setting.