Open AccessHow different is research done by the Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute, and what difference does it make?
Author(s) -
Bryan R. Luce,
Jason C. Simeone
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of comparative effectiveness research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.567
H-Index - 23
eISSN - 2042-6313
pISSN - 2042-6305
DOI - 10.2217/cer-2019-0054
Subject(s) - patient centered outcomes , outcomes research , medicine , comparative effectiveness research , funding agency , quality of life (healthcare) , family medicine , nursing , alternative medicine , public relations , pathology , political science
Aim: To determine whether research funded by the Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is consistent with the original aims of Congress and unique among other major USA funders. Methods: We compared a sample of funded projects from PCORI, NIH (Phase IV) and agency for healthcare research and quality (AHRQ; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA]-based comparative effectiveness research funding) from 2014 to 2018 on number of outcomes/study, patient-centeredness of outcomes (those related to survival, function, symptoms and health-related quality of life) and other features that may characterize patient-centered research (e.g., whether conducted in a real-world setting) using PCORI portfolio data and ClinicalTrials.gov. Results: The mean number of outcomes in PCORI studies (≥9) appeared higher than NIH (≥3)/AHRQ (5.5); a higher percentage of outcomes/study were patient-centered: >85% PCORI versus 50% AHRQ and ≤30% NIH. The majority of PCORI studies (≥74%) were conducted in a real-world setting; this characteristic could not be identified for NIH/AHRQ studies. Conclusion: PCORI-funded studies appear to have unique aspects relative to NIH and AHRQ that are consistent with PCORI’s aims of patient-centeredness.