Search

This paper presents longitudinal data representing federal funding for health services research and discusses the observed trends in the larger context of overall funding for research and development in the United States. By putting into context public and private funding trends, the authors examine how these trends effect the supply and demand of the health services research workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The Affordable Care Act and Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act are changing access to, and delivery of, health care in the United States, with potential implications for the field of health services research (HSR). We therefore investigated employers' perceptions of demand for individuals to conduct HSR, the competencies required for success, and implications for HSR training programs.Data Source: Interviews conducted in August 2016 with 21 key informants at a range of U.S.-based HSR organizations.Study Design: We conducted a semistructured, qualitative, telephone interview study to explore relevant topics.Data Collection/extraction Methods: Interviews with respondents were transcribed from recordings and then synthesized by respondent organization type and topic area.Principal Findings: Most respondents reported recently hiring health services researchers, and most anticipated hiring additional such researchers in the future. Most respondents emphasized the abilities to analyze data, work in teams, and engage with stakeholders. Finally, most respondents recommended that potential recruits gain real-world experience during their academic training.Conclusions: Our interviews indicated that current and future demand for health services researchers is strong. They also suggested that, as a field, HSR will continue to draw together individuals from a variety of backgrounds to inform a diverse array of decision makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the impact of proxy survey responses on cancer care experience reports and quality ratings.Data Sources/study Setting: Secondary analysis of data from Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS). Recruitment occurred from 2003 to 2005.Study Design: The study was a cross-sectional observational study. The respondents were patients with incident colorectal or lung cancer or their proxies.Data Collection/extraction Methods: Analyses used linear regression models with an independent variable for proxy versus patient responses as well as study site and clinical covariates. The outcomes were experiences with medical care, nursing care, care coordination, and care quality rating. Multiple imputation was used for missing data.Principal Findings: Among 6,471 respondents, 1,011 (16 percent) were proxies. The proportion of proxy respondents varied from 6 percent to 28 percent across study sites. Adjusted proxy scores were modestly higher for medical care experiences (+1.28 points [95 percent CI:+ 0.05 to +2.51]), but lower for nursing care (-2.81 [95 percent CI: -4.11 to -1.50]) and care coordination experiences (-2.98 [95 percent CI: -4.15 to -1.81]). There were no significant differences between adjusted patient and proxy ratings of quality.Conclusions: Proxy responses have small but statistically significant differences from patient responses. However, if ratings of care are used for financial incentives, such differences could be exaggerated across practices or areas if proxy use varies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]