Is comparative effectiveness research emphasized in oncologic residency training programs? Results of a national survey.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17577-e17577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas George Zaorsky ◽  
Jordan Hess ◽  
Robert Benjamin Den ◽  
Voichita Bar-Ad ◽  
Joanne Filicko ◽  
...  

e17577 Background: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is informally defined as an assessment of all available efficacious options for a specific medical condition, with intent to estimate effectiveness and efficiency in specific subpopulations. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 allocated $1.8 B to increase CER and train physicians in its practice. Although program directors (PDs) of medical oncology (MO) and radiation oncology (RO) training programs know that CER is emphasized nationally, it is unknown if CER is emphasized in oncological training programs themselves. We examine the emphasis of CER in MO and RO training programs. Methods: A web-based, anonymous survey was sent to RO PDs (n = 85) and chief residents (CRs; 98); and MO PDs (99), asking them to forward a link to fellows (Fs; 160). Mean weighted Likerts (MWLs ± standard deviations [SDs]) were calculated from scales (1, strongly disagree; 3, neutral; 5, strongly agree). Results: The response rates for RO PDs, RO CRs, MO PDs, and MO Fs were 20%, 21%, 11%, and 10% (combined, 15%, 68/442). Respondents had mixed beliefs in having a clear definition of CER (MWL, 3.1 ± 1.2); their programs encouraging CER (3.2 ± 1.2); including a course on CER (2.3 ± 0.9); or discussing the differences among efficacy, effectiveness, and efficiency (2.9 ± 0.9). Retrospective cohort studies were easy to perform at institutions (4.3 ± 0.8), but less so CER (3.1 ± 1.3). Respondents believed their programs’ research integrated some core values of CER, including comparing treatments to influence clinical decision making (4.6 ± 0.7). Respondents believed CER was important (4.3 ± 0.7); 47% would divert funding from other types of research toward CER; 35% would, only if funding for other research was unaffected. Conclusions: CER is not emphasized in oncologic training programs, and most PDs and trainees cannot clearly define CER. In the era of health care reform and potential future payment reforms, it is anticipated that CER will become an increasingly important component of evidence-based medicine and continuous quality improvement. This study identifies a need for oncology training programs to incorporate education about CER into their curricula.

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 278-284
Author(s):  
Douglas P. Landsittel ◽  
Larry Kessler ◽  
Christopher H. Schmid ◽  
Paul Marantz ◽  
Maria E. Suarez-Almazor ◽  
...  

A number of publications have discussed approaches to training the scientific workforce in comparative effectiveness research (CER) and patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR). To meet this need, funders have offered resources for developing educational materials and establishing training programs. To extend these efforts into specific researcher communities, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed an R25 Funding Opportunity Announcement that called for basic, advanced, and experiential training for a specific researcher community in collaboration with associated program partners. This paper describes the strategies developed by the 5 subsequently funded programs, their specific researcher communities and program partners, and the challenges associated with developing in-person and online programs. We focus on lessons learned that can be translated into developing training programs nationwide and on training for the special populations of interest. We also discuss the creation of a sustainable network for training and the conduct of comparative effectiveness research/patient-centered outcomes research in targeted communities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document