How different is research done by the Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute, and what difference does it make?

• Published in: Journal of comparative effectiveness research 2019-10, Vol.8 (14), p.1239-1251
• Main Authors: Luce, Bryan R, Simeone, Jason C
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: AHRQ; American Recovery & Reinvestment Act 2009-US; Asthma; Cardiovascular disease; Clinical medicine; comparative effectiveness; Decision making; Diabetes; Funding; Health services; interventional; NIH; observational; outcomes research; patient-centeredness; Patients; PCORI; Quality; real-world evidence; Research centers; research portfolio; Stakeholders; Studies; Taxonomy
• ISSN: 2042-6305; 2042-6313
• DOI: 10.2217/cer-2019-0054

To determine whether research funded by the Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is consistent with the original aims of Congress and unique among other major USA funders. We compared a sample of funded projects from PCORI, NIH (Phase IV) and agency for healthcare research and quality (AHRQ; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA]-based comparative effectiveness research funding) from 2014 to 2018 on number of outcomes/study, patient-centeredness of outcomes (those related to survival, function, symptoms and health-related quality of life) and other features that may characterize patient-centered research (e.g., whether conducted in a real-world setting) using PCORI portfolio data and ClinicalTrials.gov. The mean number of outcomes in PCORI studies (≥9) appeared higher than NIH (≥3)/AHRQ (5.5); a higher percentage of outcomes/study were patient-centered: >85% PCORI versus 50% AHRQ and ≤30% NIH. The majority of PCORI studies (≥74%) were conducted in a real-world setting; this characteristic could not be identified for NIH/AHRQ studies. PCORI-funded studies appear to have unique aspects relative to NIH and AHRQ that are consistent with PCORI’s aims of patient-centeredness.