Scientific Evaluation and Review of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH): A Streamlined, Systematic, Phased Approach for Determining “What Works” in Healthcare

Abstract

Background: Answering the question of “what works” in healthcare can be complex and requires the careful design and sequential application of systematic methodologies. Over the last decade, the Samueli Institute has, along with multiple partners, developed a streamlined, systematic, phased approach to this process called the Scientific Evaluation and Review of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH™). The SEaRCH process provides an approach for rigorously, efficiently, and transparently making evidence-based decisions about healthcare claims in research and practice with minimal bias.Methods: SEaRCH uses three methods combined in a coordinated fashion to help determine what works in healthcare. The first, the Claims Assessment Profile (CAP), seeks to clarify the healthcare claim and question, and its ability to be evaluated in the context of its delivery. The second method, the Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Literature (REAL©), is a streamlined, systematic review process conducted to determine the quantity, quality, and strength of evidence and risk/benefit for the treatment. The third method involves the structured use of expert panels (EPs). There are several types of EPs, depending on the purpose and need. Together, these three methods—CAP, REAL, and EP—can be integrated into a strategic approach to help answer the question “what works in healthcare?” and what it means in a comprehensive way.Discussion: SEaRCH is a systematic, rigorous approach for evaluating healthcare claims of therapies, practices, programs, or products in an efficient and stepwise fashion. It provides an iterative, protocol-driven process that is customized to the intervention, consumer, and context. Multiple communities, including those involved in health service and policy, can benefit from this organized framework, assuring that evidence-based principles determine which healthcare practices with the greatest promise are used for improving the public's health and wellness.

Evaluating Integrative Cancer Clinics With the Claim Assessment Profile: An Example With the InspireHealth Clinic

“… 7 The EDS was later taken over by Samueli Institute where it was further developed and renamed SEaRCH, which contained the CAP as the initial descriptive phase of CAM evaluation. 8 …”

Claim Assessment Profile: A Method for Capturing Healthcare Evidence in the Scientific Evaluation and Review of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH)

“…Run for several years by the Foundation for Alternative and Integrative Medicine (formerly named National Foundation of Alternative Medicine), the program was later transferred to Samueli Institute in 2008, where it was further developed, tested, and renamed SEaRCH. 5 …”

“…4 It went on to suggest that “the speed and complexity with which new medical interventions and scientific knowledge are being developed often make RCTs difficult or even impossible to conduct.” 1 Thus, new methods whereby data are collected from and applied in naturalistic healthcare contexts are needed. To fill these gaps in methodology, the Scientific Evaluation and Review of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH) 5 is a systematic, stepwise, streamlined set of methods to evaluate CIH practice claims. It uses a sequenced, synergistic program of methods that includes field investigations for claims in practice; systematic reviews 6 for current evidence; and expert panels 7 for determining application, policy, or patient preference and the direction for further research.…”

Establishing fidelity for the creating opportunities for personal empowerment: Symptom and technology management resources (COPE‐STAR) intervention

“…The use of expert reviewers is critical when creating effective research interventions. In nursing and health research, experts provide opinions and feedback from their experience or background to help strengthen a proposed intervention (Jonas, Crawford, Hilton, & Elfenbaum, 2017). Their feedback is especially helpful when evidence from literature is lacking (Coulter, Elfenbaum, Jain, & Jonas, 2016).…”