Thinking about Health-Related Outcomes

What Do We Need Evidence about?

Russell E. Glasgow, Ross C. Brownson, Rodger Kessler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: There is an urgent need for efficient, equitable interventions across the disease spectrum from prevention to palliative care. To identify and prioritize such interventions, evidence of effectiveness important to potential constituents is needed on outcomes relevant to them. Methods: To inform practice and policy, evidence is needed on actionable, harmonized outcomes which are feasible to collect in most settings and relevant to citizens, practitioners, and decision makers. We propose that increased priority should be given to certain outcomes that are infrequently collected across multiple domains. Results: A modification of a logic model of health outcomes by Proctor et al. is used to propose key domains and measures of implementation, service delivery, biomarkers, and health and functioning outcomes. Recommendations are made to give increased priority to implementation (especially reach, resource requirements/costs; and fidelity/adaptation); Institute of Medicine service delivery categories of equity and safety; and patient reported health and functioning outcomes. Conclusions: Implications of this outcomes framework include that biomarkers are not always the most important or relevant outcomes; that harmonized, pragmatic, and actionable measures are needed for each of these types of outcomes, and that significant changes in training and review of grants and publications are needed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)286-291
Number of pages6
JournalClinical and Translational Science
Volume6
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Health
Biomarkers
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (U.S.) Health and Medicine Division
Organized Financing
Palliative Care
Medicine
Publications
Safety
Costs and Cost Analysis
Costs

Keywords

  • Biomarkers
  • Evaluation
  • Implementation
  • Measures
  • Outcomes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuroscience(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics(all)

Cite this

Thinking about Health-Related Outcomes : What Do We Need Evidence about? / Glasgow, Russell E.; Brownson, Ross C.; Kessler, Rodger.

In: Clinical and Translational Science, Vol. 6, No. 4, 01.08.2013, p. 286-291.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Glasgow, Russell E. ; Brownson, Ross C. ; Kessler, Rodger. / Thinking about Health-Related Outcomes : What Do We Need Evidence about?. In: Clinical and Translational Science. 2013 ; Vol. 6, No. 4. pp. 286-291.
@article{42d80496362f4d2289faa40b6d0569c0,
title = "Thinking about Health-Related Outcomes: What Do We Need Evidence about?",
abstract = "Background: There is an urgent need for efficient, equitable interventions across the disease spectrum from prevention to palliative care. To identify and prioritize such interventions, evidence of effectiveness important to potential constituents is needed on outcomes relevant to them. Methods: To inform practice and policy, evidence is needed on actionable, harmonized outcomes which are feasible to collect in most settings and relevant to citizens, practitioners, and decision makers. We propose that increased priority should be given to certain outcomes that are infrequently collected across multiple domains. Results: A modification of a logic model of health outcomes by Proctor et al. is used to propose key domains and measures of implementation, service delivery, biomarkers, and health and functioning outcomes. Recommendations are made to give increased priority to implementation (especially reach, resource requirements/costs; and fidelity/adaptation); Institute of Medicine service delivery categories of equity and safety; and patient reported health and functioning outcomes. Conclusions: Implications of this outcomes framework include that biomarkers are not always the most important or relevant outcomes; that harmonized, pragmatic, and actionable measures are needed for each of these types of outcomes, and that significant changes in training and review of grants and publications are needed.",
keywords = "Biomarkers, Evaluation, Implementation, Measures, Outcomes",
author = "Glasgow, {Russell E.} and Brownson, {Ross C.} and Rodger Kessler",
year = "2013",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/cts.12080",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "286--291",
journal = "Clinical and Translational Science",
issn = "1752-8054",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Thinking about Health-Related Outcomes

T2 - What Do We Need Evidence about?

AU - Glasgow, Russell E.

AU - Brownson, Ross C.

AU - Kessler, Rodger

PY - 2013/8/1

Y1 - 2013/8/1

N2 - Background: There is an urgent need for efficient, equitable interventions across the disease spectrum from prevention to palliative care. To identify and prioritize such interventions, evidence of effectiveness important to potential constituents is needed on outcomes relevant to them. Methods: To inform practice and policy, evidence is needed on actionable, harmonized outcomes which are feasible to collect in most settings and relevant to citizens, practitioners, and decision makers. We propose that increased priority should be given to certain outcomes that are infrequently collected across multiple domains. Results: A modification of a logic model of health outcomes by Proctor et al. is used to propose key domains and measures of implementation, service delivery, biomarkers, and health and functioning outcomes. Recommendations are made to give increased priority to implementation (especially reach, resource requirements/costs; and fidelity/adaptation); Institute of Medicine service delivery categories of equity and safety; and patient reported health and functioning outcomes. Conclusions: Implications of this outcomes framework include that biomarkers are not always the most important or relevant outcomes; that harmonized, pragmatic, and actionable measures are needed for each of these types of outcomes, and that significant changes in training and review of grants and publications are needed.

AB - Background: There is an urgent need for efficient, equitable interventions across the disease spectrum from prevention to palliative care. To identify and prioritize such interventions, evidence of effectiveness important to potential constituents is needed on outcomes relevant to them. Methods: To inform practice and policy, evidence is needed on actionable, harmonized outcomes which are feasible to collect in most settings and relevant to citizens, practitioners, and decision makers. We propose that increased priority should be given to certain outcomes that are infrequently collected across multiple domains. Results: A modification of a logic model of health outcomes by Proctor et al. is used to propose key domains and measures of implementation, service delivery, biomarkers, and health and functioning outcomes. Recommendations are made to give increased priority to implementation (especially reach, resource requirements/costs; and fidelity/adaptation); Institute of Medicine service delivery categories of equity and safety; and patient reported health and functioning outcomes. Conclusions: Implications of this outcomes framework include that biomarkers are not always the most important or relevant outcomes; that harmonized, pragmatic, and actionable measures are needed for each of these types of outcomes, and that significant changes in training and review of grants and publications are needed.

KW - Biomarkers

KW - Evaluation

KW - Implementation

KW - Measures

KW - Outcomes

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84890844518&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84890844518&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/cts.12080

DO - 10.1111/cts.12080

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 286

EP - 291

JO - Clinical and Translational Science

JF - Clinical and Translational Science

SN - 1752-8054

IS - 4

ER -