Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:28:06.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The National Patient Library: Evidence-based Information for Consumers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Jeffrey C. Lerner
Jeffrey C. Lerner
Affiliation:
ECRI
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A National Patient Library, a public/private partnership, is proposed to identify and vet information for consumers. Library staff will help tailor general information to consumers' specific needs. The library includes an electronic network. The principal focus of the library's information is controversial and experimental procedures, Pharmaceuticals, and medical devices.

Type
Special Section: The Consumer And Technology
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , Winter 1998 , pp. 81 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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

REFERENCES

1.American Association of Health Plans. Our philosophy of care. 1996.Google Scholar
2.Avorn, J., Chen, M., & Hartley, R.Scientific versus commercial sources of influence on the prescribing behavior of physicians. American Journal of Medicine, 1982, 73, 4–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.CDP Technologies. Combined health information database: field guide.Google Scholar
4.Council on Competitiveness. Highway to health: transforming U.S. health care in the information age. Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness, 1996.Google Scholar
5.de Jong, R. H.Backfire: AHCPR practice guideline for acute low back pain. Journal of the South Carolina Medical Association, 1995, 91, 465–68.Google ScholarPubMed
6.ECRI. ACOG lists ob/gyn technologies needing more study. Health Technology Trends, 1997, 9, in press.Google Scholar
7.ECRI. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplantation and/or blood cell transplantation for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer [technology assessment report]. Plymouth Meeting (PA): ECRI, 1996.Google Scholar
8.ECRI. High-dose chemotherapy with bone marrow transplant for metastatic breast cancer: Patient reference guide. Plymouth Meeting (PA): ECRI, 1996.Google Scholar
9. ECRI telephone survey, 1991.Google Scholar
10.ECRI and the U.S. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Healthcare technology choices under managed care: Communicating directly with patients and their clinicians. A conference on critical issues. November 7–8,1996. Plymouth Meeting (PA): ECRI, 1996.Google Scholar
11.Eddy, D. M.High-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplantation for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1992, 10, 657–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield announces new policy for evaluating experimental and investigational procedures for terminally ill. Outside experts to be used to assess effectiveness of requested procedures [press release]. 01 27, 1997.Google Scholar
13.Ferguson, J. H., Dubinsky, M., & Kirsch, P. J.Court-ordered reimbursement for unproven medical technology: Circumventing technology assessment. JAMA, 1993, 269, 2116–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Fleming, T. R., & DeMets, D. L.Surrogate end points in clinical trials: Are we being misled? Annals of Internal Medicine, 1996, 125, 605–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making, Inc. Shared decision-making programs: Providing patients and their physicians help with the medical decision-making process [cited Jan 7,1997]. Available from: http://www.dartmouth.edu/dms/cecs/dimdm/.Google Scholar
16.Gotzsche, P. C., Liberati, A., Torri, V., et al. Beware of surrogate outcome measures. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1996, 12, 238–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Hyde, C. J.Using the evidence: A need for quantity, not quality? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1996, 12, 280–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Kennedy, M. A tool for patient education. Health Data Management, 02 1996, 61–65.Google Scholar
19.Lerner, J. C.Consumer protection: A study of bone marrow transplant for breast cancer. Quality through Research and Technology, 1996, 1, 15–26.Google Scholar
20.Lindberg, D. Statement of the Director, National Library of Medicine. NLM Appropriations Hearing; 1995 March 22; 1995 March [cited Aug 13, 1996]. Available from: gopher://gopher.nlm.nih.gov:70/00/nlminfo/newsletters/reports/nlmstatm.txt.Google Scholar
21. National Institutes of Health. Consensus Development Statement. Breast cancer screening for women ages 40–49. January 21–23, 1997 [cited Jan 25, 1997]. Available from: http://odp.od.nih.gov/consensus/statements/cdc/103/103_stmt.html.Google Scholar
22.Papp, A. S.The era of the patient [letter and reply]. JAMA, 1993, 270, 451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Reiser, S. J.The era of the patient. Using the experience of illness in shaping the missions of health care. JAMA, 1993, 269, 1012–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Pollock, E. J. Tale of the tapes: How one media deal became hazardous to investor's health. Medical-video series united Dr. Koop and Time Inc., but sales were dismal. The Wall Street Journal, 02 13, 1997.Google Scholar
25.Ruzek, S. B. Medical response to women's health activities: Conflict, accommodation and cooptation. In Research in the sociology of health care, vol. 1. JAI Press Inc., 1980, 335–54.Google Scholar
26.Shalala, D. E. [Secretary of Health and Human Services, Washington DC.] Memorandum to the Vice President: Status report on enhanced health information for consumers. 07 18, 1996.Google Scholar
27. State of California, AB 1663.Google Scholar
28.Time, 01 22, 1996, cover.Google Scholar
29.United States General Accounting Office (GAO). Accounting and Information Management Division. Consumer health informatics: Emerging issues. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations, House Com mittee on Government Reform and Oversight. Washington, DC: GAO. 07, 1996. Publication No. GAO/AIMD-96–86.Google Scholar
30.Vladeck, B. C. Administrator, Health Care Financing Administration [personal communication]. 04, 1996.Google Scholar
31.Winslow, R. How political pressure pushed a U.S. agency to back new therapy. The Wall Street Journal, 11 17, 1994.Google Scholar
32.Winslow, R. Videos, questionnaires aim to expand role of patients in treatment decisions. The Wall Street Journal. 02 25, 1992.Google Scholar
33.Wulff, H. R., Anderson, B., & Brandenhoff, P., et al. What do doctors know about statistics? Statistics in Medicine, 1987, 6, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed