Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Research Focused on Community-Based Delivery of Palliative Care: Overview of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's Funding Initiative

Palliative care is a growing specialty that addresses the needs of individuals diagnosed with advanced illness and their caregivers. Although palliative care has been shown to improve a variety of patient- and caregiver-centered outcomes, access to comprehensive palliative care services for patients is often limited. There is a need to identify the most effective approaches to delivering palliative care to patients in community settings. In fiscal year 2017, based on extensive input from a diverse set of stakeholders, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded nine multisite comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) trials focused on community-based delivery of palliative care for a total investment of $80 million. These studies, focusing on advance care planning and models of palliative care delivery, represent some of the largest most complex palliative care trials funded to date. Each study evaluates both patient and caregiver outcomes, and together, these trials include a broad range of health conditions, interventions, and settings of care. PCORI has also fostered a learning network of the funded awardees to facilitate the successful conduct of these CER studies and to support awardee efforts to develop collaborative products relevant to advancing the field of palliative care research and practice. The protocols of each of the nine trials, detailed in this issue, demonstrate the expansive reach of the investment PCORI has made in an effort to further the research agenda and provide substantive research evidence in stakeholder-identified areas of need in the field of palliative care.

Researchers, Patients, and Stakeholders Evaluating Comparative-Effectiveness Research: A Mixed-Methods Study of the PCORI Reviewer Experience

OBJECTIVES

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) includes patients and stakeholders alongside scientists in reviewing research applications using unique review criteria including patient-centeredness and patient and/or stakeholder engagement. To support extension of this unique collaborative model to other funders, information from the reviewers on the review process is needed to understand how scientists and nonscientists evaluate research proposals together. Thus, this study aimed to describe reviewers' perspectives of the interactions during the in-person review panel; to examine the value and challenges of including scientists, patients, and stakeholders together; and to understand the perceived importance of PCORI's review criteria.

METHODS

This study utilized anonymous, cross-sectional surveys (N = 925 respondents from 5 funding cycles: 470 scientists, 217 patients, 238 stakeholders; survey completion rates by cycle: 70-89%) and group interviews (N = 18).

RESULTS

Reviewers of all types describe PCORI Merit Review as respectful, balanced, and one of reciprocal influence among different reviewer types. Reviewers indicate strong support and value of input from all reviewer types, receptivity to input from others, and the panel chair's incorporation of all views. Patients and stakeholders provide real-world perspectives on importance to patients, research partnership plans, and study feasibility. Challenges included concerns about a lack of technical expertise of patient/stakeholder reviewers and about scientists dominating conversations. The most important criterion for assigning final review scores was technical merit-either alone or in conjunction with patient-centeredness or patient/ stakeholder engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

PCORI Merit Reviewers' self-reports indicate that the perspectives of different reviewer types are influential in panel discussions and Merit Review outcomes.

Educating the Psychology Workforce in the Age of the Affordable Care Act: A Graduate Course Modeled after the Priorities of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) represents a paradigm shift in the U.S. healthcare system, which has implications for psychology programs producing the next generation of trainees. In particular, the ACA has established the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), which has been tasked with developing national priorities and funding research aimed at improving healthcare quality by helping patients and providers to make informed healthcare decisions. PCORI's national priorities span five broad domains: person-centered outcomes research, health disparities research, healthcare systems research, communication and dissemination research, and methodologic research. As these national priorities overlap with the knowledge and skills often emphasized in psychology training programs, initiatives by training programs to bolster strengths in these domains could place trainees at the forefront of this emerging research paradigm. As a part of a new Masters program in behavioral health, our program developed a health psychology course modeled around PCORI's five national priorities, and an initial evaluation in a small sample supported student learning in the five PCORI domains. In summary, the current report has implications for familiarizing readers with PCORI's national priorities for U.S. healthcare, stimulating debate surrounding psychology's response to the largest healthcare paradigm shift in recent U.S. history, and providing a working model for programs seeking to implement PCORI-related changes to their curricula.