Linking Practice-Based Research Networks and Clinical and Translational Science Awards: New Opportunities for Community Engagement by Academic Health Centers

被引:38
作者
Fagnan, Lyle J. [1 ]
Davis, Melinda [1 ]
Deyo, Richard A. [2 ]
Werner, James J. [3 ,4 ]
Stange, Kurt C. [5 ]
机构
[1] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Oregon Rural Practice Based Res Network, Portland, OR 97239 USA
[2] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Oregon Clin & Translat Sci Inst, Community & Practice Res Program, Portland, OR 97239 USA
[3] Case Western Reserve Univ Clin & Translat Sci Col, Practice Based Res Network Shared Resources, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
[4] Case Comprehens Canc Ctr, Cleveland, OH USA
[5] Case Western Reserve Univ Clin & Translat Sci Col, Practice Based Res Network Res, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; FAMILY MEDICINE; RESPONSE RATES; NIH; CTSAS; TIME;
D O I
10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181cd2ed3
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Purpose Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are a part of many National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) sites. PBRNs, groups of primary care practices committed to collaborating on practice-relevant research, are unfamiliar to many CTSA leaders. Conversely, the CTSAs, as new research structures designed to transform clinical research, are unfamiliar to many PBRN directors. This study examined the extent to which these programs have congruent goals and expectations, and whether their engagement is likely to be mutually beneficial. Method The authors sent a Web-based survey to 38 CTSA community engagement directors and a similar survey to 114 PBRN directors during the fall of 2008. Results A total of 66% (25/38) CTSA community engagement directors and 61% (69/114) PBRN directors responded. Two thirds of responding CTSAs reported working with PBRNs, and over half of responding PBRNs reported a CTSA affiliation. Both groups indicated this relationship was important. CTSAs looked to PBRNs for access to patients and expertise in engaging communities and clinical practices. PBRNs reported seeking stable infrastructure support and greater collaboration and visibility in the academic research community. PBRN infrastructure support from CTSAs was highly variable. Both groups perceived considerable promise for building sustainable relationships and a bidirectional flow of information and research opportunities. Conclusions With fewer than three years of experience, the PBRN/CTSA relationship remains in the discovery phase; the participants are still negotiating expectations. If these collaborations prove mutually beneficial, they may advance the community engagement goals of many academic health centers.
引用
收藏
页码:476 / 483
页数:8
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], NIH ROADM MED RES
[2]   Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals [J].
Asch, DA ;
Jedrziewski, MK ;
Christakis, NA .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 50 (10) :1129-1136
[3]   Opening the black box: Cognitive strategies in family practice [J].
Christensen, RE ;
Fetters, MD ;
Green, LA .
ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2005, 3 (02) :144-150
[4]  
Cohen D., QUALITATIVE RES GUID
[5]   Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care: Controversies and Recommendations [J].
Cohen, Deborah J. ;
Crabtree, Benjamin. F. .
ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2008, 6 (04) :331-339
[6]  
Cummings SM, 2001, HEALTH SERV RES, V35, P1347
[7]   CTSAS and family medicine research - Time to get connected [J].
Ewigman, Bernard ;
Michener, Lloyd .
ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2008, 6 (02) :181-182
[8]  
FRANKEL R, 1999, STANDARDS QUALITATIV, P333
[9]  
Glaser B., 1967, DISCOV GROUNDED THEO, DOI DOI 10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014
[10]   A short history of primary care practice-based research networks: From concept to essential research laboratories [J].
Green, Larry A. ;
Hickner, John .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN BOARD OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2006, 19 (01) :1-10