Thinking about Health-Related Outcomes: What Do We Need Evidence about?
Version of Record online: 11 JUL 2013
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Clinical and Translational Science
Volume 6, Issue 4, pages 286–291, August 2013
How to Cite
Glasgow, R. E., Brownson, R. C. and Kessler, R. S. (2013), Thinking about Health-Related Outcomes: What Do We Need Evidence about?. Clinical and Translational Science, 6: 286–291. doi: 10.1111/cts.12080
- Issue online: 6 AUG 2013
- Version of Record online: 11 JUL 2013
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the Prevention Research Centers Program). Grant Number: U48/DP001903
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.
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.
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.
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.