tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181810725696409953.post9041880388129337509..comments2024-03-17T04:20:11.083-04:00Comments on The Population Health Blog: Is A Moratorium on Disease Management Company White Papers Warranted? If Not, Here Are 7 Guideline RulesJaan Sidorovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05072456803925863874noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181810725696409953.post-49509749834738653342009-03-21T09:09:00.000-04:002009-03-21T09:09:00.000-04:00I like the guidelines from Dr. Motheral. I suspec...I like the guidelines from Dr. Motheral. I suspect that if I had thought through the original post over several days (instead of just one - the typical time horizon for a keeping a blog), the 3 simple rules would have bubbled to the top.<BR/><BR/>In a separate email, another colleague pointed out that peer review is not all that it should be. I'm surprised to hear that, since my publications have benefitted immensely from them - and as a reviewer, I like to think I've helped improve the quality of the scientific discourse. I don't mind poor data, design and conclusions so much, so long as (the Editors force) the author(s) take the time to point out the weaknesses in their "Discussion" AND if readers remember the motto of caveat emptor.Jaan Sidorovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05072456803925863874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9181810725696409953.post-34271621137861477302009-03-20T11:49:00.000-04:002009-03-20T11:49:00.000-04:00The DMCB should be commended for questioning the v...The DMCB should be commended for questioning the value of vendor-supplied white papers. As a researcher and healthcare executive, I continue to be puzzled as to why DM and other healthcare companies believe they are creating any meaningful sales or brand value from white papers. My experience strongly suggests that peer-reviewed publications have far greater marketing value than white papers. <BR/><BR/>Leading research and product development at a PBM for many years, I issued white papers very infrequently and in small proportion relative to peer-reviewed publications. In deciding whether to use a white paper, I had a few simple guidelines that I would encourage other organizations to consider: 1) Is the research trying to make a causal claim? If yes, the paper should go through the review process of a peer-reviewed journal. However, if the study is descriptive in nature, (i.e., not trying to make a causal claim) and the findings are NOT promotional in their conclusions (e.g., changes in medical spending over time), then a white paper could be considered. 2) Any white papers must have full transparency of methods. While most readers are not interested in methodological specifics, the full detail should be made available. 3) Case studies should not be positioned as white papers but left to the realm of marketing materials while still undergoing proper review by research teams before dissemination. These guidelines will prevent readers/plan sponsors from confusing white papers with validation of outcomes, which should come through the peer-review process.<BR/><BR/>None of these guidelines guarantee rigorous white papers, which is why DMCB’s recommendation to make the underlying data available is an excellent suggestion. The concept has merit, not just for white papers, but even for peer-reviewed publications, which are fraught with inconsistent quality in peer- reviews. The field of economics has been making data available for years, creating much greater accountability for the quality of the methodology and conclusions. While many will raise concerns over confidentially and proprietary information, I believe these arguments are red herrings and that both issues can be satisfactorily addressed. This is an idea that warrants further discussion.<BR/><BR/>The only point on which I disagreed with DMCB’s commentary on white papers is the quality of the peer-review process and articles published in disease management-focused journals. Generally speaking, I find the quality of the work in these journals to be lacking. Many studies make causal claims without even basic quasi-experimental designs that include appropriate control groups, and the study conclusions are frequently not supported by the study data and methodology. Plan sponsors, the real audience for these publications, would be better served by raising the quality of the articles published in these journals.<BR/><BR/>Brenda Motheral, BPharm, MBA, PhD<BR/>President, CareScientificAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com