Download Free Effectiveness Review Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Effectiveness Review and write the review.

L.E.T. has changed countless corporations and private businesses-including many Fortune 500 companies-with its down-to-earth communication and conflict resolution skills. Now, this indispensable source has been newly revised with updated research and timely case studies.
Healthcare decision makers in search of reliable information that compares health interventions increasingly turn to systematic reviews for the best summary of the evidence. Systematic reviews identify, select, assess, and synthesize the findings of similar but separate studies, and can help clarify what is known and not known about the potential benefits and harms of drugs, devices, and other healthcare services. Systematic reviews can be helpful for clinicians who want to integrate research findings into their daily practices, for patients to make well-informed choices about their own care, for professional medical societies and other organizations that develop clinical practice guidelines. Too often systematic reviews are of uncertain or poor quality. There are no universally accepted standards for developing systematic reviews leading to variability in how conflicts of interest and biases are handled, how evidence is appraised, and the overall scientific rigor of the process. In Finding What Works in Health Care the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends 21 standards for developing high-quality systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. The standards address the entire systematic review process from the initial steps of formulating the topic and building the review team to producing a detailed final report that synthesizes what the evidence shows and where knowledge gaps remain. Finding What Works in Health Care also proposes a framework for improving the quality of the science underpinning systematic reviews. This book will serve as a vital resource for both sponsors and producers of systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) commissioned the RTI International–University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (RTI-UNC) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) to explore how systematic review groups have dealt with clinical heterogeneity and to seek out best practices for addressing clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews (SRs) and comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs). Such best practices, to the extent they exist, may enable AHRQ's EPCs to address critiques from patients, clinicians, policymakers, and other proponents of health care about the extent to which “average” estimates of the benefits and harms of health care interventions apply to individual patients or to small groups of patients sharing similar characteristics. Such users of reviews often assert that EPC reviews typically focus on broad populations and, as a result, often lack information relevant to patient subgroups that are of particular concern to them. More important, even when EPCs evaluate literature on homogeneous groups, there may be varying individual treatment for no apparent reason, indicating that average treatment effect does not point to the best treatment for any given individual. Thus, the health care community is looking for better ways to develop information that may foster better medical care at a “personal” or “individual” level. To address our charge for this methods project, the EPC set out to answer six key questions (KQ). Key questions for methods report on clinical heterogeneity include: 1. What is clinical heterogeneity? a. How has it been defined by various groups? b. How is it distinct from statistical heterogeneity? c. How does it fit with other issues that have been addressed by the AHRQ Methods Manual for CERs? 2. How have systematic reviews dealt with clinical heterogeneity in the key questions? a. What questions have been asked? b. How have they pre-identified population subgroups with common clinical characteristics that modify their intervention-outcome association? c. What are best practices in key questions and how these subgroups have been identified? 3. How have systematic reviews dealt with clinical heterogeneity in the review process? a. What do guidance documents of various systematic review groups recommend? b. How have EPCs handled clinical heterogeneity in their reviews? c. What are best practices in searching for and interpreting results for particular subgroups with common clinical characteristics that may modify their intervention-outcome association? 4. What are critiques in how systematic reviews handle clinical heterogeneity? a. What are critiques from specific reviews (peer and public) on how EPCs handled clinical heterogeneity? b. What general critiques (in the literature) have been made against how systematic reviews handle clinical heterogeneity? 5. What evidence is there to support how to best address clinical heterogeneity in a systematic review? 6. What questions should an EPC work group on clinical heterogeneity address? Heterogeneity (of any type) in EPC reviews is important because its appearance suggests that included studies differed on one or more dimensions such as patient demographics, study designs, coexisting conditions, or other factors. EPCs then need to clarify for clinical and other audiences, collectively referred to as stakeholders, what are the potential causes of the heterogeneity in their results. This will allow the stakeholders to understand whether and to what degree they can apply this information to their own patients or constituents. Of greatest importance for this project was clinical heterogeneity, which we define as the variation in study population characteristics, coexisting conditions, cointerventions, and outcomes evaluated across studies included in an SR or CER that may influence or modify the magnitude of the intervention measure of effect (e.g., odds ratio, risk ratio, risk difference).
This book is a critical assessment of the knowledge base on educational effectiveness, covering a period of five decades of research. It formulates a “lean” theory of good schooling, and identifies and explains instances of “ineffectiveness”, such as low effect sizes of malleable conditions, for which expectations are highly strung. The book presents a systemic outlook on educational effectiveness and improvement, as it starts out from an integrated multi-level model that comprises system level, school level and instructional conditions. It offers a classification of school improvement strategies and scenarios for system level educational improvement. Above all, the analysis is very systematic, comprehensive and strongly grounded in theory. The book includes a case study analysis of various strands of improvement-oriented educational policy in the Netherlands as an illustration of some of the arguments used.
The 2016 Development Effectiveness Review (DEfR) is the 10th in a series of yearly reports by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) on its performance in achieving the priorities of Strategy 2020, its long-term strategic framework for 2008–2020. The 2016 DEfR tracks recent development progress in Asia and the Pacific, assesses ADB’s development effectiveness, and identifies areas where ADB’s performance needs to be strengthened.
The Development Effectiveness Review 2008 Report is the second annual corporate performance report of the Asian Development Bank (ADB). It assesses progress in implementing ADB's long-term strategic framework 2008-2020 (Strategy 2020) using specific performance indicators, baselines, and targets presented in ADB's results framework. The review measures ADB's contribution to development in Asia and the Pacific and performance as an organization. It pinpoints areas where ADB has been successful, where challenges remain, and where corrective action is required.
The Development Effectiveness Review Report is the annual corporate performance report of the Asian Development Bank (ADB). It assesses progress in implementing ADB's long-term strategic framework 2008-2020 (Strategy 2020) using specific performance indicators, baselines, and targets presented in ADB's results framework. The review measures ADB's contribution to development in Asia and the Pacific and performance as an organization. It pinpoints areas where ADB has been successful, where challenges remain, and where corrective action is required.