Primary Care Research in the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's Portfolio.

In their article in this issue, Mazur and colleagues analyze the characteristics of early recipients of funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Mazur and colleagues note correctly that PCORI has a unique purpose and mission and suggest that it should therefore have a distinct portfolio of researchers and departments when compared with other funders such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Responding on behalf of PCORI, the authors of this Commentary agree with the characterization of PCORI's mission as distinct from that of NIH and others.

How the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is engaging patients and others in shaping its research agenda.

Clinical research has been driven traditionally by investigators, from generating research questions and outcomes through analysis and release of study results. Building on the work of others, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is tapping into its broad-based stakeholder community--especially patients, caregivers, and their clinicians--to generate topics for research, help the institute prioritize those topics, select topics for funding, and ensure patients' involvement in the design of research projects. This article describes PCORI's approach, which is emblematic of the organization's mandate under the Affordable Care Act to seek meaningful ways to integrate the patient's voice into the research process, and describes how it is being used in selection of research that PCORI will fund.

Building sustainable multi-functional prospective electronic clinical data systems.

A better alignment in the goals of the biomedical research enterprise and the health care delivery system can help fill the large gaps in our knowledge of the impact of clinical interventions on patient outcomes in the real world. There are several initiatives underway to align the research priorities of patients, providers, researchers, and policy makers. These include Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)-supported projects to build flexible prospective clinical electronic data infrastructure that meet the needs of these diverse users.

Comparative effectiveness research priorities at federal agencies: the view from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institute on Aging, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

In the last year, attention has been focused on translating federally sponsored health research into better health for Americans. Since the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) on February 17, 2009, ARRA funds to support Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) have increased this focus. A large proportion of topical areas of interest in CER affects the older segment of the population.

Moving closer to a rapid-learning health care system.

This Perspective discusses activities that are necessary for developing a rapid-learning health system. Recognition of the central role that patients play in the successful evolution of such a system will help ensure that the goals of the transformation are met. Understanding the trade-offs of using a less controlled form of research to inform health care decision making and making necessary investments in methodology and translation will help secure the success of continuous-learning research.

Clinicians' attitudes to clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review.

Objective: To systematically review surveys of clinicians' attitudes to clinical practice guidelines.

Data Sources: MEDLINE, HealthStar, Embase and CINAHL were searched electronically for English-only surveys published from 1990 to 2000.

Study Selection: We included surveys with responses to one or more of seven propositions (see below).