PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Research efficiency is gaining increasing attention in the research enterprise, including palliative care research. The importance of generating meaningful findings and translating these scientific advances to improved patient care creates urgency in the field to address well documented system inefficiencies. The Palliative Care Research Cooperative Group (PCRC) provides useful examples for ensuring research efficiency in palliative care. RECENT FINDINGS: Literature on maximizing research efficiency focuses on the importance of clearly delineated process maps, working instructions, and standard operating procedures in creating synchronicity in expectations across research sites. Examples from the PCRC support these objectives and suggest that early creation and employment of performance metrics aligned with these processes are essential to generate clear expectations and identify benchmarks. These benchmarks are critical in effective monitoring and ultimately the generation of high-quality findings that are translatable to clinical populations. Prioritization of measurable goals and tasks to ensure that activities align with programmatic aims is critical. SUMMARY: Examples from the PCRC affirm and expand the existing literature on research efficiency, providing a palliative care focus. Operating procedures, performance metrics, prioritization, and monitoring for success should all be informed by and inform the process map to achieve maximum research efficiency.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Research efficiency is gaining increasing attention in the research enterprise, including palliative care research. The importance of generating meaningful findings and translating these scientific advances to improved patient care creates urgency in the field to address well documented system inefficiencies. The Palliative Care Research Cooperative Group (PCRC) provides useful examples for ensuring research efficiency in palliative care. RECENT FINDINGS: Literature on maximizing research efficiency focuses on the importance of clearly delineated process maps, working instructions, and standard operating procedures in creating synchronicity in expectations across research sites. Examples from the PCRC support these objectives and suggest that early creation and employment of performance metrics aligned with these processes are essential to generate clear expectations and identify benchmarks. These benchmarks are critical in effective monitoring and ultimately the generation of high-quality findings that are translatable to clinical populations. Prioritization of measurable goals and tasks to ensure that activities align with programmatic aims is critical. SUMMARY: Examples from the PCRC affirm and expand the existing literature on research efficiency, providing a palliative care focus. Operating procedures, performance metrics, prioritization, and monitoring for success should all be informed by and inform the process map to achieve maximum research efficiency.
Authors: Laura C Hanson; Anna P Schenck; Franziska S Rokoske; Amy P Abernethy; Jean S Kutner; Carol Spence; Judi Lund Person Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: David C Currow; Jane L Wheeler; Paul A Glare; Stein Kaasa; Amy P Abernethy Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2008-09-21 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Jean S Kutner; Marlaine C Smith; Lisa Corbin; Linnea Hemphill; Kathryn Benton; B Karen Mellis; Brenda Beaty; Sue Felton; Traci E Yamashita; Lucinda L Bryant; Diane L Fairclough Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-09-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: David M Dilts; Alan Sandler; Steven Cheng; Joshua Crites; Lori Ferranti; Amy Wu; Robert Gray; Jean MacDonald; Donna Marinucci; Robert Comis Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-06-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Amy P Abernethy; David C Currow; Roger Hunt; Helena Williams; Gerda Roder-Allen; Debra Rowett; Tania Shelby-James; Adrian Esterman; Frank May; Paddy A Phillips Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2005-11-10 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Amy P Abernethy; Christine F McDonald; Peter A Frith; Katherine Clark; James E Herndon; Jennifer Marcello; Iven H Young; Janet Bull; Andrew Wilcock; Sara Booth; Jane L Wheeler; James A Tulsky; Alan J Crockett; David C Currow Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-09-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David M Dilts; Steven K Cheng; Joshua S Crites; Alan B Sandler; James H Doroshow Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Christine L Ritchie; Kathryn I Pollak; Karen A Kehl; Jeri L Miller; Jean S Kutner Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Elizabeth G Nesmith; Regina S Medeiros; Colville H B Ferdinand; Michael L Hawkins; Steven B Holsten; Yanbin Dong; Haidong Zhu Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2013-07-01 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Alexandria A Gonzales; Alexander Mastrolonardo; Kenna Winget; Malavan Ragulojan; Adam J Fleming; Sheila K Singh Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 5.738