About

Dr. Jeffrey G. Jarvik, MD, MPH, is a Professor of Radiology and Neurological Surgery at the University of Washington, and an adjunct professor in the Departments of Pharmacy and Orthopedics & Sports Medicine. He is a radiologist at UW Medical Center, specializing in neuroradiology. Dr. Jarvik serves as the Principal Investigator and Director of the NIH/NIAMS-funded UW Clinical Learning Evidence And Research (CLEAR) Center for Musculoskeletal Disorders. He is also Co-Director of the Comparative Effectiveness, Cost and Outcomes Research Center (CECORC) and the Health Services Research Section within the Department of Radiology. An internationally recognized expert in MR imaging of the spine, Dr. Jarvik is a leader in health services and comparative effectiveness research related to radiology. His clinical and research interests include the imaging and treatment of patients with low back pain, osteoporotic fractures, and he is actively involved in pragmatic clinical trials and health services research. He earned his medical degree from the University of California, San Diego, and his Master of Public Health from the University of Washington. His training includes a residency in diagnostic radiology and a fellowship in neuroradiology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, along with completing the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars program.

Research topics

• Medicine
• Anesthesia
• Surgery
• Physical therapy
• Physical medicine and rehabilitation

Selected publications

• Comparing the Effects of Two Types of Epidural Shots on Pain and Physical Ability in Older Adults with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

  2019-04-17

  reportOpen accessSenior author

  Lumbar spinal stenosis is a narrowing of space in the spine and is common in older adults. The narrowing of the spinal space can result in pressure on the nerves in the lower back, which can cause leg pain and make it difficult to do everyday activities.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Comparing Three Ways of Involving Patients With Low Back Pain in Setting Research Priorities—SMARTER

  2019-10-21

  reportSenior author

  Background: One defining element of patient-centered outcomes research is that the patient voice is represented. By including this perspective as part of research priority-setting activities, questions of greatest importance to patients are recognized and incorporated into future research agendas. Surveys, focus groups, and online crowdsourcing are approaches described for obtaining patient input for research activities. Little is known, however, about how these different approaches produce comparable or similar lists of priorities. Further, there is an opportunity to understand how patients wish to be involved. Because these methods are increasingly applied in research, it is important to understand the strengths and limitations of each approach. Objectives: The overarching goal of this project is to inform researchers on how surveys, focus groups, and online methods compare for involving patients 65 years and older in research prioritization activities. The objectives of this project are twofold: (1) to evaluate how patient engagement methods (mailed questionnaires, focus groups, and online crowd-voting) compare in producing similar research priorities, participant satisfaction, and time and cost to implement; and (2) to determine if patient demographics (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity/race, education) and disease severity (e.g., duration of low-back pain, patient reported measures of pain, disability) influence participation in research activities. Methods: We propose a three-year, two-phase study. In the first phase, patients in the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data - Extension of Research (BOLDER) registry project, a registry consisting of approximately 3,000 patients aged 65 years and older with back pain, will receive a mailed invitation to provide input on priorities for research through a paper-based questionnaire. In the second phase, we will invite interested respondents to continue participation in one of three interactive activities: an in-person focus group, a two-part mailed questionnaire, or an online crowd-voting community to rank research topics. We will assess differences in the top five priorities generated by each approach. Additionally, we will assess participant satisfaction with the experience through questionnaires and interviews. Patient Outcomes (Projected): Our primary outcome is differences in the top five priorities generated by each activity. We will also utilize patient-reported satisfaction as an important outcome to compare different prioritization methods. Finally, we will compare characteristics of patients participating (and not participating) in each of the research prioritization activities. These outcomes will help to inform investigators and patients about the comparability of different prioritization methods.

  PublisherDOI

• Intervention Adaptation Strategies and Examples

  NIH Collaboratory eBooks · 2017-01-01

  book-chapter
  PublisherDOI

• Table of Contents

  Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · 2017-07-26

  articleOpen access
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Patient and Procedural Risk Factors for Cortisol Suppression Following Epidural Steroid Injections for Spinal Stenosis

  PM&R · 2016-09-01 · 2 citations

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Poster 456 Does Provision of Individualized Reports Showing Changes in Pain and Function after Epidural Steroid Injections (ESI) Alter Decision‐Making About Future ESI Use?

  PM&R · 2016-09-01 · 1 citations

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Figure 35, Meta-analysis of epidural corticosteroid injections versus placebo interventions for spinal stenosis: Successful intermediate-term functional outcome

  2015-01-01

  articleSenior author
  Publisher

• Table 9, Pooled results, transforaminal versus interlaminar epidural corticosteroid injections

  2015-01-01

  articleSenior author
  Publisher

• Table 3, Trials of epidural corticosteroid injections for nonradicular pain

  2015-01-01

  articleSenior author
  Publisher

• Epidural Steroid Injections for Sacroiliac Pain

  2015-01-01

  articleSenior author
  Publisher

Frequent coauthors

• Janna Friedly

  University of Washington

  47 shared

• Robin Hashimoto

  Weatherford College

  42 shared

• Roger Chou

  Brown University

  42 shared

• Tracy Dana

  Oregon Health & Science University

  42 shared

• Christina Bougatsos

  Oregon Health & Science University

  42 shared

• Rochelle Fu

  Oregon Health & Science University

  42 shared

• Sean Sullivan

  Bryn Mawr College

  33 shared

• Seán M. Sullivan

  North Carolina State University

  5 shared