Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:28:04.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program on stimulating National Institutes of Health–funded research, 1998 to 2001

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2007

Barry Portnoy ,
Jennifer Miller ,
Kathryn Brown-Huamani  and
Emily DeVoto
Barry Portnoy
Affiliation:
National Institutes of Health
Jennifer Miller
Affiliation:
National Institutes of Health
Kathryn Brown-Huamani
Affiliation:
Scientific Consulting Group
Emily DeVoto
Affiliation:
Independent Consultant
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Development Conference (CDC) was instituted to provide evidence-based guidance on controversial medical issues to researchers, health practitioners, and the public; however, the degree of impact this activity has on stimulating relevant research is unclear. This study examines the impact of CDC statements on the initiation of related NIH-funded research projects.

Methods: Six CDCs from 1998 to 2001 were examined. Research initiatives related to the Conferences' topics were collected through two discrete methods: (i) the overall number of relevant pre- and postconference research activities was compiled using NIH's Information for Management, Planning, Analysis, and Coordination II (IMPAC II) and the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects (CRISP) grant application and award databases; (ii) for each CDC, the sponsoring institute's conference coordinator and other identified Program Directors were queried for their knowledge of new conference-specific research initiatives sponsored by their institute. The main outcome measure was the total number of requests for applications, requests for proposals, program announcements, broad agency announcements, notices, and funded investigator-initiated research program grants (RO1s) for a given Consensus topic in the 3 years before (baseline measure) and following (measure of impact) a CDC.

Results: As identified through NIH's IMPAC II and DHHS' CRISP grants and announcements databases, the total number of relevant postconference research initiatives increased for five of six CDCs when compared with baseline activity levels; research activities remained constant for the sixth. When inclusion criteria were restricted to institute-identified research initiatives, two of six CDC topics had overall increases in relevant research activity in the postconference period.

Conclusions: CDCs appear to have a positive impact on the stimulation of related NIH-funded research initiatives. Future outcomes evaluations using prospective data collection methods and more robust participation by sponsoring and cosponsoring institutes should strengthen the reliability of the association between new research initiatives on a given topic and their causal relationship to a given CDC.

Keywords

Consensus developmentImpact evaluationDiffusion of innovation
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , July 2007 , pp. 343 - 348
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Consensus Development Program: About us. Available at: http://consensus.nih.gov/ABOUTCDP.htm. Accessed 12 December 2006.
Doksum T, Bernhardt BA, Holtzman NA. 2001 Carrier screening for cystic fibrosis among Maryland obstetricians before and after the 1997 NIH Consensus Conference. Genet Test. 5: 111– 116.Google Scholar
Du X, Freeman DH Jr, Syblik DA. 2000 What drove changes in the use of breast conserving surgery since the early 1980s? The role of the clinical trial, celebrity action and an NIH consensus statement. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 62: 71– 79.Google Scholar
Ferguson JH. 1993 NIH consensus conferences: Dissemination and impact. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 703: 180– 199.Google Scholar
Ferguson JH. 1995 The NIH consensus development program. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 21: 332– 336.Google Scholar
Lazovich D, Solomon CC, Thomas DB, et al. 1999 Breast conservation therapy in the United States following the 1990 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on the treatment of patients with early stage invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer. 86: 628– 637.Google Scholar
Lazovich D, White E, Thomas DB, et al. 1997 Change in the use of breast-conserving surgery in western Washington after the 1990 NIH Consensus Development Conference. Arch Surg. 132: 418– 423.Google Scholar
NIH OER. Glossary of NIH terms. Available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/glossary.htm. Accessed 12 December 2006.
NIH OER. Types of grant programs: NIH Research Project Grant Program (R01). Available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/r01.htm. Accessed 12 December 2006.
No authors listed. 1980 Pros and cons on NIH consensus conferences. JAMA. 244: 1413– 1414.
Perry S. 1987 The NIH Consensus Development Program. A decade later. N Engl J Med. 317: 485– 488.Google Scholar
Perry S, Kalberer JT Jr. 1980 The NIH consensus-development program and the assessment of health-care technologies: The first two years. N Engl J Med. 303: 169– 172.Google Scholar
Ragnarsson KT. 2006 Traumatic brain injury research since the 1998 NIH Consensus Conference: Accomplishments and unmet goals. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 21: 379– 387.Google Scholar
Richmond JB. Statement before the Submcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific Planning, Analysis, and Cooperation. Congressional Record 124; 1978.
Thamer M, Ray NF, Henderson SC, et al. 1998 Influence of the NIH Consensus Conference on Helicobacter pylori on physician prescribing among a Medicaid population. Med Care. 36: 646– 660.Google Scholar
Wortman PM, Vinokur A, Sechrest L. 1988 Do consensus conferences work? A process evaluation of the NIH Consensus Development Program. J Health Polit Policy Law. 13: 469– 498.Google Scholar