Target audiences and populationthe decisionmakers addressed in this technical review are purchasers (e purchasers such as employers and public purchasers such as the medicare & medicaid services and state medicaid programs),Executives in health plans that must negotiate incentive arrangements er organizations or individual providers, executives in zations that must negotiate incentive arrangements with providers, officials and other organizations interested in creating health mance reports for public release, and policymakers. Als & health tion & chronic y & patient g opportunity g opportunities announcement grants policy informed consent & authorization toolkit for minimal risk grants policy l regulations & l register access to federally funded l emphasis ng & education application, review & award application ation deadlines & important tips for grant mechanisms & ation receipt & sections for scientific peer -award grant grantee g recognition for your ahrq-funded able database of ahrq grants, working papers & hhs recovery act projects funded by the patient-centered outcomes research trust research summit on diagnostic al advisory council research zation & to patient and family engagement exhibit 3.
Accuracy and reliability of ound, mra, or computed tomography screeningasymptomatic subjectssystematic reviews of studies that compared screening test to gold standard of angiographypopulation-based prevalence studiespopulation generalizable to hed in question 3. 785998 5: inclusion and exclusion introduction to systematic reviews, with examples from health sciences and 1: overview & types of 2: the research 3: target appropriate resources with effective 4: recordkeeping and managing your 5: inclusion and exclusion 6: critical 8: further ion and exclusion ion and exclusion criteria set the boundaries for the systematic review.
In this pagetechnical expert advisory paneltarget audiences and populationkey questionsliterature review methodsidentifying ongoing researchother titles in these collectionsahrq technical reviewshealth services/technology assessment text. We searched the cochrane january 1, 1990 through december 15, 2003 (ovid, evidence ne reviews multifile) using the search terms described in table able 3.
The goal of sions was to identify the issues purchasers interested in qbp faced , if the available research offered conclusions about these aspects of qbp,The various stakeholders would be in a better position to select ches to key questions for which literature, ongoing research, or results es were sought in preparation of this report were:Choosing provider incentive is the evidence on the extent to which health plans ers use incentives to improve quality and efficiency? The use of financial incentives for quality and ly increase the probability that patients receive y, efficient care?
Inclusion/exclusion criteria can include the sample size, method of sampling or availability of a relevant comparison group in the study. It may also be necessary to give the definitions, and source of the definition, used for particular concepts in the research question (e.
Discrepancies in inclusion were resolved sion and ting published articles for completeness of reportingwe assessed each of the published articles for their completeness ing the factors we identified in our conceptual model that nce a provider's response to incentives. Inclusion were resolved by discussion and re-review and by project officers at funding agencies or with the principal the project under bing the study design of ongoing researchfor each research project, we interviewed either project staff (usually pal investigator) or the project officer to determine the .
For literature searchtechnical expert advisory panelfor advice on the scope of the project, refinement of the key questions, ation of this technical review, we consulted technical experts in ing fields: employer purchasing strategies, provider ment, consumer use of report cards and consumer preferences for information, risk adjustment, and economics. Literature review inclusion and exclusion us pagenext pagetable of contentsguide to patient and family engagementappendix a: draft key informant interview protocolappendix b: summary of search termsappendix c: list of web sites reviewedappendix d: data abstraction protocolexecutive summaryfindingsimplications for the guideintroductionmethodsnext stepsreferencessummary and priority or target audience characteristics related to patient and family engagement around safety or be elements of organizational culture and infrastructure related to patient and family engagement in safety or quality, including building partnerships among patients, families, and health care be interventions for patient and family qualitative and quantitative research methods, including meta-analyses and literature be theories related to patient and family on only history or value of patient and family on only safety or quality without addressing patient or family on only patient- and family-centered care without addressing safety or on only specific conditions, topics, issues, treatment decisions, or opinion or editorial last reviewed october 2014 page originally created september 2012.
We also searched the web sites of ed of staff at ahrq, the robert wood johnson foundation, rnia healthcare foundation, and the commonwealth fund whether ongoing research that met our inclusion criteria being funded by zations. Database searcheswe searched the two available databases for ongoing health services research,Using a similar search strategy for each (tables 6 and 7).
Public health officials and e those at the local, state, federal, and international ultimate target population of this report is the u. Information about the inclusion and exclusion criteria is usually recorded as a paragraph or table within the methods section of the systematic review.
For ture review, we used standard search strategies involving the two online databases (medline® and cochrane) using key words,Followed by evaluation of the bibliographies of relevant articles, web relevant organizations (especially of funding agencies providing ies and of employer organizations pursuing qbp), and reference ed by our technical expert panel (table 1). Abstract reviewto identify potentially relevant articles for focused searching, at least igators (to ensure consistent application of the inclusion ion criteria) reviewed each citation and, whenever an abstract ble, the abstract.
Yield = 27 ion/exclusion criteria for complication rates of s that include complication rates related to cea by 30 day mortality or stroke for asymptomatic patientsstudies that evaluate differences in outcomes by technique, including:Different types of patchesshuntingeversion s that evaluate differences in outcomes by surgical specialty, including:Neurosurgeonvascular surgeongeneral s that evaluate differences in outcomes by non-surgical factors:Anesthesia typeintraoperative ultrasound or other imagingintraoperative s that evaluate differences in outcomes by patient factors:Studies that include more than one surgeon and more than one hospitalstudies evaluating complication differences by surgical specialty, training, or experiencestudies evaluating complication differences by surgeon or hospital volume and by settingstudies that have complication rates for asymptomatic patientscase series, rcts, s evaluating only patients with combined cea and coronary artery bypass graftstudies that include only patients receiving stenting, angioplasty, endovascular treatmentstudies that include only symptomatic patients or don't separate rates by symptom statusnon-united states studiesreview articles without outcome datastudies that include only patients with prior strokestudies evaluating re-stenosis outcomes onlyrecurrent stenosis studiesquality improvement studies without complication rates listedutilization studies without complication ratespseudoaneurysm studiesbilateral cea studiesemergent cea studiesstudies including outcomes for only one surgeon or only one clinical sitestudies with < 50 subjectsnot on harms of ceano relevant or 30 day outcomeshigh risk or special populationsincorrect study ion/exclusion criteria for key questions 1– question 1. Database searchesto identify potentially relevant articles in the medical literature, ed medline® and cochrane databases and references our expert strategies.
These were:For interventional ention randomizedinclusion/exclusion criteria clear and appropriategreater than 75% follow-upnote: two criteria usually used to judge the quality of ized, controlled trial—provision of placebo to l group and blinding of the subjects—are able in this systematic ation source appropriateinformation source adequately searchedinclusion/exclusion criteria clear and appropriatedata abstraction performed by at least 2 ersprincipal measures of effect and the methods of s appropriatesearch strategythe objective of our search strategy was to identify all published ized trials and all ongoing research into qbp strategies. They are determined after setting the research question usually before the search is conducted, however scoping searches may need to be undertaken to determine appropriate criteria.
Benefits of of cea comparing surgical treatment to medical treatmentreported 30-day complication rates of ceaoutcomes of stroke and/or deathoutcomes specific for asymptomatic subjectspopulation generalizable to hed in ght noticebookshelf id: nbk33501contents< prevnext >. Review methodsbased on input from our expert advisors, our conceptual model, and erations, we developed literature review methods that included: exclusion criteria to identify potentially relevant articles, gies to retrieve articles, abstract review protocols, and a system g published studies for ion and exclusion criteriato be considered an article that provided evidence regarding one of the ons above, the article had to address one of the predictor either quality (as measured by processes or outcomes) or cost.
Our focus was on articles ed definitive primary data from randomized, controlled trials, but included systematic reviews to determine whether these contained onal information not covered by the primary randomized, excluded articles that did not meet specific criteria in terms of y of the research and reporting. Identifying ongoing researchbased on input from our expert advisors, our conceptual model, and erations, we developed methods to catalog ongoing research into qbp ed specifying: inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify nt research projects, search strategies to retrieve project abstracts,Abstract review protocols, and a system of describing the study design g research ion and exclusion criteriasince the search for ongoing research focused on projects not yet reported literature, the criteria for identifying relevant projects focused planned intervention.
A research ion criteriainclusion criteriaexclusion nting your ze key may want to think about criteria that will be used to select articles for your literature review based on your research question. Ons were reviewed and articles were retrieved in more than one of es listed able 2.