The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparative Effectiveness Research to Accelerate Translation: Recommendations for an Emerging Field of Science
Abstract
The term “comparative effectiveness research” (CER) is a new way of describing a research field with a long intellectual tradition. The U.S. Federal Coordinating Council for CER defines it as “the conduct and synthesis of research comparing the benefits and harms of different interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor health conditions in ‘real-world’ settings. The purpose of this research is to improve health outcomes by developing and disseminating evidence-based information to patients, clinicians, and other decision makers, responding to their expressed needs, about which interventions are most effective for which patients under specific circumstances.” This chapter summarizes dissemination and implementation (D&I) issues involved in CER. It begins by discussing core elements that all major stakeholders agree are included in CER. In subsequent sections, evolving content and scope issues are covered in more detail, such as research design, comparison conditions, and rapid learning paradigms from networks of settings. Finally, the chapter discusses some of the controversies within this field, such as the role and types of economic analyses and recommendations for future research needed to enhance D&I and produce CER results that will disseminate and translate into population-based change.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Assessing multiple outcomes that are likely to tap into the priorities of different audiences makes research more likely to be translated into practice.
“Assessing multiple outcomes that are likely to tap into the priorities of different audiences makes research more likely to be translated into practice (Glasgow and Steiner 2012).”
From Standards of Evidence for Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Scale-up Research in Prevention Science: Next Generation (2015) · cites this paper as Glasgow and Steiner 2012
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Glasgow, R. E., Vinson, C., Chambers, D., Khoury, M. J., Kaplan, R. M., & Hunter, C. (2012) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2012.300755 · Cited by 762
Self-citationGottfredson, D. C., Cook, T. D., Gardner, F. E. M., Gorman-Smith, D., Howe, G. W., Sandler, I. N., & Zafft, K. M. (2015) · Prevention Science · doi:10.1007/s11121-015-0555-x · Cited by 627
Glasgow, R. E., & Riley, W. T. (2013) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.03.010 · Cited by 318
Self-citationDeveloping Robust, Sustainable, Implementation Systems Using Rigorous, Rapid and Relevant Science
Glasgow, R. E., & Chambers, D. (2012) · Clinical and Translational Science · doi:10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00383.x · Cited by 278
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Glasgow, R. E., & Steiner, J. F.
- Venue
- Dissemination and Implementation Research in HealthTranslating Science to Practice
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2012-03-29
- Pages
- 72-93
- OpenAlex
- W2505315948
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 37.38
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
- Keywords
- comparative effectiveness research, dissemination and implementation, evidence translation, real-world environments, research design, economic analysis, evidence-based decision making, health outcomes
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review