Almost half of Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with cancer from 1992-2005 had at least one comorbid condition. Conditions impact a range of domains from clinical decision making to quality of life which are important to consider when conducting cancer research. We introduce a new SEER-Medicare resource to facilitate using claims data for cancer patients.
Abstract Background There have been ongoing efforts to understand when and how data from observational studies can be applied to clinical and regulatory decision making. The objective of this review was to assess the comparability of relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 1990, and January 31, 2020, that reported relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from both observational studies and RCTs. We extracted pooled relative effect estimates from observational studies and RCTs for each outcome, intervention-comparator, or indication assessed in the reviews. We calculated the ratio of the relative effect estimate from observational studies over that from RCTs, along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for each pair of pooled RCT and observational study estimates, and we evaluated the consistency in relative treatment effects. Results Thirty systematic reviews across 7 therapeutic areas were identified from the literature. We analyzed 74 pairs of pooled relative effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies from 29 reviews. There was no statistically significant difference (based on the 95% CI) in relative effect estimates between RCTs and observational studies in 79.7% of pairs. There was an extreme difference (ratio < 0.7 or > 1.43) in 43.2% of pairs, and, in 17.6% of pairs, there was a significant difference and the estimates pointed in opposite directions. Conclusions Overall, our review shows that while there is no significant difference in the relative risk ratios between the majority of RCTs and observational studies compared, there is significant variation in about 20% of comparisons. The source of this variation should be the subject of further inquiry to elucidate how much of the variation is due to differences in patient populations versus biased estimates arising from issues with study design or analytical/statistical methods.
Despite the growing recognition of the value of stakeholder engagement in research, there is limited guidance on effectively eliciting stakeholder views during the comparative effectiveness research (CER) process. This article outlines the potential role of each stakeholder (patient, provider, policymaker and payer) throughout the CER process and provides examples of practical questions that researchers can ask the four primary stakeholder groups at each step of the CER process. This guide aims to assist in the development of meaningful stakeholder–researcher shared decision-making to incorporate stakeholder views in the design, conduct and dissemination of patient-centered CER.
This article aims to determine receptivity for advancing the Learning Healthcare System (LHS) model to a novel evidence-based health care delivery framework—Learning Health Care Community (LHCC)—in Baltimore, as a model for a national initiative. Using community-based participatory, qualitative approach, we conducted 16 in-depth interviews and 15 focus groups with 94 participants. Two independent coders thematically analyzed the transcripts. Participants included community members (38%), health care professionals (29%), patients (26%), and other stakeholders (7%). The majority considered LHCC to be a viable model for improving the health care experience, outlining certain parameters for success such as the inclusion of home visits, presentation of research evidence, and incorporation of social determinants and patients’ input. Lessons learned and challenges discussed by participants can help health systems and communities explore the LHCC aspiration to align health care delivery with an engaged, empowered, and informed community.
<div>AbstractBackground:<p>Almost half of Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with cancer from 1992 to 2005 had at least one comorbid condition. Conditions affect a range of domains from clinical decision-making to quality of life, which are important to consider when conducting cancer research. We introduce a new Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare resource to facilitate using claims data for patients with cancer.</p>Methods:<p>We use the SEER–Medicare resource to estimate prevalence of comorbidities, 5-year survival rate by cancer site, stage, age and comorbidity severity, and prevalence of surgery by comorbidity for breast, prostate, colorectal and lung cancers.</p>Results:<p>Overall, the most prevalent comorbidities in the year prior to cancer diagnosis were diabetes (27%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (22%), peripheral vascular disease (14%), and congestive heart failure (12%). Comorbidity severity had a greater impact on the probability of dying from noncancer causes than dying from cancer. Severity of comorbidity and age consistently increased the probability of noncancer death. The percentage of persons receiving surgery tended to be lower among those with severe comorbidity.</p>Conclusions:<p>This study demonstrates the utility of new SEER*Stat databases that contain Medicare beneficiaries and claims-based measures of comorbidity. Our results demonstrate that comorbidity is common among older persons diagnosed with cancer and the impact of comorbidity on the probability of dying from cancer varies by cancer site, stage at diagnosis, and age.</p>Impact:<p>Comorbidity is common among persons with cancer and affects survival. Future research on the impact of comorbidity among cancer survivors is facilitated by new databases.</p></div>
Abstract Introduction No one can argue on the importance of health in one's life. However, the value of health in the context of other priorities for individuals is not always as clear. Further, patients' experience with the healthcare system is rarely contrasted with the service providers' expectations. The aim of this paper is to examine and compare patients' and providers' own definitions of health and their perceptions of the healthcare delivery experience from the lens of residents and providers in West Baltimore, Maryland. Methods This was a qualitative study with semi‐structured focus groups (15 sessions) and individual in‐depth interviews (21 interviews) with 94 participants. Two independent coders thematically analysed the transcripts. Results Patients identified five areas where health systems can help them stay healthy or become healthier: affordability and costs of care; accessibility; clinician/patient communication; addressing social determinants; and stigma and trust. Providers acknowledged that the healthcare experience is not always perfect. While the medical team focuses on conversations that enhance medical care, patients are expecting providers to touch on subjects beyond medical care. Conclusions Patients and providers need to consider that although they have a common value towards health, there is still a gap in what users expect and what providers can offer. To further align those expectations, there is a need for increasing involvement of patient in care administration and improving dialogue between the parties about these differences. Patient or Public Contribution A Stakeholder Advisory Board (SAB)—comprised of a patient, two community leaders, a physician and two healthcare administrators—was instrumental in codeveloping the study material (e.g., interview guides), engaging patients in the research process, identifying participants and codeveloping dissemination material. Two SAB members—Gail Graham, a patient consultant/professor, and Marcia Cort, a physician—are coauthors.
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) imposes a substantial burden on patients and the health care system. The presence of comorbid obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has been shown to increase the risk of morbidity and mortality in patients with COPD. There is limited information available on the incremental economic burden of comorbid OSA among patients with COPD.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)