Comparative Effectiveness Research and Evidence‐Based Health Policy: Experience from Four Countries

Comparative Effectiveness Research and Evidence‐Based Health Policy: Experience from Four... Context: The discussion about improving the efficiency, quality, and long‐term sustainability of the U.S. health care system is increasingly focusing on the need to provide better evidence for decision making through comparative effectiveness research (CER). In recent years, several other countries have established agencies to evaluate health technologies and broader management strategies to inform health care policy decisions. This article reviews experiences from Britain, France, Australia, and Germany. Methods: This article draws on the experience of senior technical and administrative staff in setting up and running the CER entities studied. Besides reviewing the agencies' websites, legal framework documents, and informal interviews with key stakeholders, this analysis was informed by a workshop bringing together U.S. and international experts. Findings: This article builds a matrix of features identified from the international models studied that offer insights into near‐term decisions about the location, design, and function of a U.S.‐based CER entity. While each country has developed a CER capacity unique to its health system, elements such as the inclusiveness of relevant stakeholders, transparency in operation, independence of the central government and other interests, and adaptability to a changing environment are prerequisites for these entities' successful operation. Conclusions: While the CER entities evolved separately and have different responsibilities, they have adopted a set of core structural, technical, and procedural principles, including mechanisms for engaging with stakeholders, governance and oversight arrangements, and explicit methodologies for analyzing evidence, to ensure a high‐quality product that is relevant to their system. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Milbank Quarterly Wiley

Comparative Effectiveness Research and Evidence‐Based Health Policy: Experience from Four Countries

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/comparative-effectiveness-research-and-evidence-based-health-policy-ijYTn0CbsU
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2009 Milbank Memorial Fund
ISSN
0887-378X
eISSN
1468-0009
DOI
10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00560.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Context: The discussion about improving the efficiency, quality, and long‐term sustainability of the U.S. health care system is increasingly focusing on the need to provide better evidence for decision making through comparative effectiveness research (CER). In recent years, several other countries have established agencies to evaluate health technologies and broader management strategies to inform health care policy decisions. This article reviews experiences from Britain, France, Australia, and Germany. Methods: This article draws on the experience of senior technical and administrative staff in setting up and running the CER entities studied. Besides reviewing the agencies' websites, legal framework documents, and informal interviews with key stakeholders, this analysis was informed by a workshop bringing together U.S. and international experts. Findings: This article builds a matrix of features identified from the international models studied that offer insights into near‐term decisions about the location, design, and function of a U.S.‐based CER entity. While each country has developed a CER capacity unique to its health system, elements such as the inclusiveness of relevant stakeholders, transparency in operation, independence of the central government and other interests, and adaptability to a changing environment are prerequisites for these entities' successful operation. Conclusions: While the CER entities evolved separately and have different responsibilities, they have adopted a set of core structural, technical, and procedural principles, including mechanisms for engaging with stakeholders, governance and oversight arrangements, and explicit methodologies for analyzing evidence, to ensure a high‐quality product that is relevant to their system.

Journal

The Milbank QuarterlyWiley

Published: Jun 1, 2009

References

  • Evidence‐Informed Evidence‐Making
    Chalkidou, Chalkidou; Walley, Walley; Culyer, Culyer; Littlejohns, Littlejohns; Hoy, Hoy

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off