Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute – Pragmatic Clinical Studies to Evaluate Patient-Centered Outcomes

September 27, 2017 by School of Medicine Webmaster

SOM faculty:

The mission of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is to improve the quality and relevance of evidence available to help patients, caregivers, clinicians, employers, insurers, and policy makers make informed health decisions.

PCORI will be releasing a new funding announcement titled, “Pragmatic Clinical Studies to Evaluate Patient-Centered Outcomes.” The goal of this announcement is to fund pragmatic clinical trials, large simple trials, or large-scale observational studies that compare the relative effectiveness of two or more alternatives for improving patient-centered outcomes. While any study that addresses critical choices faced by patients, their caregivers, clinicians, and/or delivery systems will be considered, PCORI’s multi-stakeholder panels have identified 16 high-priority topics and research questions. (See below for major topics and the link below for additional information.) PCORI will give first consideration to applications that directly address one or more of the 16 PCORI Priority Topics. PCORI has added a priority topic on Anxiety Disorders in Children, Adolescents, and/or Young Adults to the list. PCORI has funds available up to $90 million for studies in response to the current cycle of the PCS funding announcement, including any studies for the PCORI priority topics.

The pre-announcement is available now, with further details about the new topic on anxiety in children, adolescents, and/or young adults. The funding announcement will be released on October 3, 2017.

Priority topics:

  1. [NEW] Treatment of anxiety in children, adolescents, and young adults
  2. Compare the benefits and harms of pharmacologic, psychological, or combination treatments for treating different types of insomnia (sleep onset vs. sleep maintenance insomnia) on sleep and patient-centered outcomes including next-day function, mood, and quality of life.
  3. Community-acquired pneumonia
  4. Studies of patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) who failed first-line treatments
  5. Compare the effectiveness and safety of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for adolescent alcohol abuse in different settings (school-based versus primary-care-based), using different delivery modes (in-person, remote, and computer-based) or providers (physician, mental health specialist, nurse, staff worker, or peer).
  6. Surgical options for hip fracture in the elderly
  7. Multicomponent interventions to reduce initiation of tobacco use and promote cessation of tobacco use among high-risk populations with known disparities
  8. Integration of mental and behavioral health services into the primary care of persons at risk for disparities in health care and outcomes
  9. Compare the effectiveness of different remote delivery approaches to evidence-based, non-pharmacological treatments for depression and anxiety conditions.
  10. Treatment strategies for symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA), including joint replacement
  11. Improving outcomes in mothers and babies at risk for disparities by comparing evidence-based models of perinatal care
  12. Compare the effectiveness of clinical interventions to reduce non-traumatic lower-extremity amputations in racial or ethnic minorities and low-income populations with diabetes.
  13. Compare the effectiveness of diverse models of comprehensive support services (e.g., incorporation of wrap-around services, alternative providers, and technology) for infants and their families or caregivers after discharge from the neonatal intensive care unit.
  14. Compare the effectiveness of alternative delivery models (e.g., primary care, schools, and mobile vans) versus the dentist’s office in preventing dental caries in children in medically underserved areas.
  15. Compare the benefits and risks of different models of integrating pharmacists into the care transitions team in order to reduce adverse drug events, improve patient-centered
    outcomes, and lower preventable emergency department visits and re-hospitalizations post hospital discharge among patients with multiple chronic comorbidities.
  16. Compare the effectiveness of evidence-based screening and primary prevention approaches, including different modes and settings (e.g., universal screening versus targeting at-risk individuals; virtual versus face-to-face screening; and within primary-care setting versus school-based) at minimizing suicidality among adolescents.

Filed Under: Funding Opportunities