Report of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group on outcomes research in cardiovascular disease
Authors
Krumholz, Harlan M.Peterson, Eric D.
Ayanian, John Z.
Chin, Marshall H.
DeBusk, Robert F.
Goldman, Lee
Kiefe, Catarina I.
Powe, Neil R.
Rumsfeld, John S.
Spertus, John A.
Weintraub, William S.
UMass Chan Affiliations
Department of Quantitative Health SciencesDocument Type
Journal ArticlePublication Date
2005-06-16Keywords
Cardiovascular DiseasesClinical Trials as Topic
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Delivery of Health Care
administration
Humans
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
Population Surveillance
*Research
Training Support
Treatment Outcome
United States
Bioinformatics
Biostatistics
Epidemiology
Health Services Research
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a working group on outcomes research in cardiovascular disease (CVD). The working group sought to provide guidance on research priorities in outcomes research related to CVD. For the purposes of this document, "outcomes research" is defined as investigative endeavors that generate knowledge to improve clinical decision making and healthcare delivery to optimize patient outcomes. The working group identified the following priority areas: (1) national surveillance projects for high-prevalence CV conditions; (2) patient-centered care; (3) translation of the best science into clinical practice; and (4) studies that place the cost of interventions in the context of their real-world effectiveness. Within each of these topics, the working group described examples of initiatives that could serve the Institute and the public. In addition, the group identified the following areas that are important to the field: (1) promotion of the use of existing data; (2) facilitation of collaborations with other federal agencies; (3) investigations into the basic science of outcomes research, with an emphasis on methodological advances; (4) strengthening of appropriate study sections with individuals who have expertise in outcomes research; and (5) expansion of opportunities to train new outcomes research investigators. The working group concluded that a dedicated investment in CV outcomes research could directly improve the care delivered in the United States.Source
Circulation. 2005 Jun 14;111(23):3158-66. Link to article on publisher's siteDOI
10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.536102Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/47398PubMed ID
15956152Related Resources
Link to Article in PubMedae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.536102