PCORI Describes Funding Criteria in Health Affairs Article, Briefing
An article in the latest issue of Health Affairs highlights PCORI’s approach to evaluating the potential impact of research studies. The article, authored by PCORI staff and Methodology Committee members, uses a hypothetical model to indicate how PCORI’s criteria will be applied in making funding decisions. The article, by PCORI Executive Director Joe Selby, MD, MPH, scientist Rachael Fleurence, PhD, and Methodology Committee members Michael Lauer, MD, and Sebastian Schneeweiss, MD, ScD, was featured in the journal’s October issue, a theme issue on “Current Challenges in Comparative Effectiveness Research.”
Using a hypothetical migraine study, the authors apply six PCORI funding criteria to evaluate the study’s significance, patient-centeredness and scientific rigor:
- Impact of the condition on individuals and populations
- Innovation and potential for improvement
- Impact on healthcare system performance
- Patient-centeredness
- Rigorous research methods
- Inclusion of different populations
The authors determined that PCORI would not likely have funded the hypothetical research question, and explained how the study could be better designed to fit the organization’s mission. In doing so, the article provides a useful guide for how PCORI will identify the research topics and questions that it chooses to fund.
The release of Health Affairs October issue was accompanied by a briefing, October 11 in Washington, D.C., that explored the challenges facing PCORI and comparative effectiveness research as a whole. Dr. Fleurence, representing PCORI at the briefing, described how the organization will use transparency, substantive engagement with the medical community, and scientifically rigorous methods to pursue its mission of helping patients and those who care for them make better-informed health and healthcare decisions that will lead to improved outcomes. The full text of the Health Affairs article is available here.