공익적 임상연구를 위한 연구설계 결정과정: 환자중심 의료기술 최적화 연구(PACEN) 과제화를 중심으로
A Decision Process of Study Designs for a National Clinical Research Program: Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center (PACEN)
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Health technology assessment (HTA) includes the synthesis of current evidence to support healthcare decision-making. In cases of the limited, contradictory, or uncertain evidence, it requires the generation of trustworthy evidence through rigorous health research to support better decisionmaking. Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center (PACEN) is a investigator-initiated research program funded by government, to answer the practical questions raised in real-world settings. It includes systematic process such as topic suggestions from various stakeholders and developing them into research proposals through the reviews of advisory groups involving relevant professionals and the public contributors. The important step in research development is specifying the research questions and determining appropriate study designs to explore the questions. This paper concerns the latter and introduces the process in PACEN that supports the discussion and consensus among the advisory group members to decide study designs for research questions. PACEN supports the four types of evidence-generation studies: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster non-RCTs (cluster non-RCTs), prospective cohorts, and retrospective cohorts. Two diagrams are sequentially applied to determine the appropriate study designs among them once either the evidence synthesis or generation is decided with the first diagram, one of the four study types is decided with the second one. Some cases of utilizing the diagrams in determining of PACEN’s clinical research designs are provided. It expects that clinical research developed based on the efforts and collaboration of many stakeholders at PACEN, will be linked in a circular way to HTA and health policy decision-making.
Abstract
Health technology assessment (HTA) includes the synthesis of current evidence to support healthcare decision-making. In cases of the limited, contradictory, or uncertain evidence, it requires the generation of trustworthy evidence through rigorous health research to support better decisionmaking. Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center (PACEN) is a investigator-initiated research program funded by government, to answer the practical questions raised in real-world settings. It includes systematic process such as topic suggestions from various stakeholders and developing them into research proposals through the reviews of advisory groups involving relevant professionals and the public contributors. The important step in research development is specifying the research questions and determining appropriate study designs to explore the questions. This paper concerns the latter and introduces the process in PACEN that supports the discussion and consensus among the advisory group members to decide study designs for research questions. PACEN supports the four types of evidence-generation studies: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster non-RCTs (cluster non-RCTs), prospective cohorts, and retrospective cohorts. Two diagrams are sequentially applied to determine the appropriate study designs among them once either the evidence synthesis or generation is decided with the first diagram, one of the four study types is decided with the second one. Some cases of utilizing the diagrams in determining of PACEN’s clinical research designs are provided. It expects that clinical research developed based on the efforts and collaboration of many stakeholders at PACEN, will be linked in a circular way to HTA and health policy decision-making.
참고문헌 (22)
- McIsaac ML, "Primary data collection in health technology assessment", Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 23, pp.24~29 (2007)
- Kim M, "Clinical trials for the public interest: a concept and prospects", National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, 21~32 (2019)
- Kim MJ, "Clinical trials for the public interest: a concept and prospects", National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA), 21~32 (2019)
- Supporting system modeling of clinical research for improving outcomes, "Heo DS", National Institute of Health, ~ (2007)
- Annual report 2019, "2020", National Institute for Health Research, 2021
- Buckley DI, "The refinement of topics for systematic reviews : lessons and recommendations from the effective health care program", Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, ~ (2013)
- 2019 annual report, "Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute", Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, ~ (2020)
- "Regulations on Management of Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center (PACEN)", ~ (2019)
- 김민정, "미국과 영국의 의료기술평가 연구주제 도출 과정", 보건의료기술평가, 2(1), pp.43~52 (2014), 한국보건의료기술평가학회[DOI]
- Park BJ, "Evidencebased healthcare", pp.3~118 (2018), Pakyoungsa
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, "Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance", National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 177~178 (2012)
- Hartling L, "Testing a tool for the classification of study designs in systematic reviews of interventions and exposures showed moderate reliability and low accuracy", J Clin Epidemiol, 64, pp.861~871 (2011)
- Zaza S, "Data collection instrument and procedure for systematic reviews in the guide to community preventive services", Am J Prev Med, 18(1 Suppl), pp.44~74 (2000)
- West S, "Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence", Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, ~ (2002)
- Seo HJ, "A newly developed tool for classifying study designs in systematic reviews of interventions and exposures showed substantial reliability and validity", J Clin Epidemiol, 70, pp.200~205 (2016)
- Schwartz D, "Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials", J Chronic Dis, 20, pp.637~648 (1967)
- "Differentiating between RCTs, PCTs, and quality improvement activities" (2014)[URL]
- Loudon K, "The PRECIS-2 tool : designing trials that are fit for purpose", BMJ, 350, pp.h2147~ (2015)
- A summary of methods for comparative effectiveness research, "Ahn J", National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, 7~12 (2013)
- Choudhry NK, "Full coverage for preventive medications after myocardial infarction", N Engl J Med, 365, pp.2088~2097 (2011)
- Hansson L, "Prospective randomized open blinded end-point (PROBE) study. A novel design for intervention trials", Blood Press, 1, pp.113~119 (1992)
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, "Research recommendations process and methods guide", National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, ~ (2015)