Analytical Methods for a Learning Health System: 1. Framing the Research Question.

Michael Stoto, Michael Oakes, Elizabeth Stuart, Lucy Savitz, Elisa L Priest, Jelena Zurovac
{"title":"Analytical Methods for a Learning Health System: 1. Framing the Research Question.","authors":"Michael Stoto,&nbsp;Michael Oakes,&nbsp;Elizabeth Stuart,&nbsp;Lucy Savitz,&nbsp;Elisa L Priest,&nbsp;Jelena Zurovac","doi":"10.5334/egems.250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Learning health systems use routinely collected electronic health data (EHD) to advance knowledge and support continuous learning. Even without randomization, observational studies can play a central role as the nation's health care system embraces comparative effectiveness research and patient-centered outcomes research. However, neither the breadth, timeliness, volume of the available information, nor sophisticated analytics, allow analysts to confidently infer causal relationships from observational data. However, depending on the research question, careful study design and appropriate analytical methods can improve the utility of EHD. The introduction to a series of four papers, this review begins with a discussion of the kind of research questions that EHD can help address, noting how different evidence and assumptions are needed for each. We argue that when the question involves describing the current (and likely future) state of affairs, causal inference is not relevant, so randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are not necessary. When the question is whether an intervention improves outcomes of interest, causal inference is critical, but appropriately designed and analyzed observational studies can yield valid results that better balance internal and external validity than typical RCTs. When the question is one of translation and spread of innovations, a different set of questions comes into play: How and why does the intervention work? How can a model be amended or adapted to work in new settings? In these \"delivery system science\" settings, causal inference is not the main issue, so a range of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research designs are needed. We then describe why RCTs are regarded as the gold standard for assessing cause and effect, how alternative approaches relying on observational data can be used to the same end, and how observational studies of EHD can be effective complements to RCTs. We also describe how RCTs can be a model for designing rigorous observational studies, building an evidence base through iterative studies that build upon each other (i.e., confirmation across multiple investigations).</p>","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":"5 1","pages":"28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/7f/ee/egems-5-1-250.PMC5983067.pdf","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/egems.250","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Learning health systems use routinely collected electronic health data (EHD) to advance knowledge and support continuous learning. Even without randomization, observational studies can play a central role as the nation's health care system embraces comparative effectiveness research and patient-centered outcomes research. However, neither the breadth, timeliness, volume of the available information, nor sophisticated analytics, allow analysts to confidently infer causal relationships from observational data. However, depending on the research question, careful study design and appropriate analytical methods can improve the utility of EHD. The introduction to a series of four papers, this review begins with a discussion of the kind of research questions that EHD can help address, noting how different evidence and assumptions are needed for each. We argue that when the question involves describing the current (and likely future) state of affairs, causal inference is not relevant, so randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are not necessary. When the question is whether an intervention improves outcomes of interest, causal inference is critical, but appropriately designed and analyzed observational studies can yield valid results that better balance internal and external validity than typical RCTs. When the question is one of translation and spread of innovations, a different set of questions comes into play: How and why does the intervention work? How can a model be amended or adapted to work in new settings? In these "delivery system science" settings, causal inference is not the main issue, so a range of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research designs are needed. We then describe why RCTs are regarded as the gold standard for assessing cause and effect, how alternative approaches relying on observational data can be used to the same end, and how observational studies of EHD can be effective complements to RCTs. We also describe how RCTs can be a model for designing rigorous observational studies, building an evidence base through iterative studies that build upon each other (i.e., confirmation across multiple investigations).

学习型卫生系统的分析方法:构建研究问题。
学习型卫生系统使用常规收集的电子卫生数据(EHD)来推进知识和支持持续学习。即使没有随机化,观察性研究也可以在国家卫生保健系统接受比较有效性研究和以患者为中心的结果研究时发挥核心作用。然而,无论是广度、及时性、可用信息的数量,还是复杂的分析,都不能让分析师自信地从观测数据中推断出因果关系。然而,根据研究问题,精心的研究设计和适当的分析方法可以提高EHD的效用。作为四篇系列论文的引言,本综述首先讨论了EHD可以帮助解决的研究问题,并指出每个问题需要不同的证据和假设。我们认为,当问题涉及描述当前(以及可能的未来)事件状态时,因果推理是不相关的,因此没有必要进行随机临床试验(rct)。当问题是干预是否改善了感兴趣的结果时,因果推理是至关重要的,但适当设计和分析的观察性研究可以产生比典型的随机对照试验更好地平衡内部和外部效度的有效结果。当问题涉及到创新的转化和传播时,就会出现一系列不同的问题:干预是如何起作用的,为什么起作用?如何修改或调整模型以适应新环境?在这些“输送系统科学”设置中,因果推理不是主要问题,因此需要一系列定量、定性和混合研究设计。然后,我们描述了为什么随机对照试验被视为评估因果关系的黄金标准,依赖于观察数据的替代方法如何用于相同的目的,以及EHD的观察性研究如何成为随机对照试验的有效补充。我们还描述了随机对照试验如何成为设计严格观察性研究的模型,通过相互建立的迭代研究(即跨多个调查的确认)建立证据基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信