This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 36/2/225    most recent 01.STR.0000153068.73805.43v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Matchar, D. B. Articles by Rudd, A. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Matchar, D. B. Articles by Rudd, A. G. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Stroke Related Collections Health policy and outcome research

(Stroke. 2005;36:225.)
© 2005 American Heart Association, Inc.

Advances in Stroke 2004

Health Policy and Outcomes Research 2004

From the Center for Clinical Health Policy Research (D.B.M.), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; and the Clinical Effectiveness and Evaluation Unit (A.G.R.), Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.

Correspondence to Prof David B. Matchar, Center for Clinical Health Policy Research, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27705. E-mail match001@mc.duke.edu

Key Words: Advances in Stroke • health burden • health economics • health policy • health outcomes • outcomes research • stroke

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

	Introduction

 
Health policy research and its kin, outcomes research, are primarily aimed at informing policy decision-makers. Although we know of no clear line separating these 2 types of research, an apparent convention is to term research performed specifically for policy decisions and typically reported in nonacademic publications as "health policy research,"¹ whereas outcomes research is the more academic counterpart. Outcomes research has been defined as follows: the study of "... the impact of health care on the health outcomes of patients and populations... in general, real-world settings... (measuring) a wide range of outcomes, including mortality, morbidity, functional status, mental well-being, and other aspects of health-related quality of life... (and) may entail any in a range of primary data collection methods and synthesis methods that combine data from primary studies."² Whatever term one wishes to use, this report focuses on several studies published in peer-review journals in the past year that are of potential importance to the thinking and actions of policy decision-makers.

Policy decision-makers can be said—at the risk of oversimplifying—to be driven by 2 dominant questions. The first question is, does a particular problem deserve my attention? The second question is, is there any solution to the problem that is credible, practical, and otherwise politically attractive?

	Does Stroke Deserve the Policy Maker’s Attention?

 
A condition deserving of a policy maker’s attention is one that affects many worthy individuals in disconcerting ways and consumes large volumes of shared resources. Several recent studies reinforce the contention that by this metric, stroke deserves attention.

	Health Burden of Stroke

 
Particularly salient is a study by . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. Ovbiagele and S. R. Levine Addressing racial and ethnic disparities in stroke: The time is now Neurology, October 24, 2006; 67(8): 1328 - 1329. [Full Text] [PDF]