Rowena J Dolor1, Kimberly Campbell-Voytal2, Jeanette Daly3, Zsolt J Nagykaldi4, Maeve O'Beirne5, Pamela Sterling5, Lyle J Fagnan6, Barcey Levy3, LeAnn Michaels6, Hannah A Louks7, Paul Smith7, Cheryl B Aspy4, V Beth Patterson5, Miria Kano8, Andrew L Sussman8, Robert Williams8, Anne Victoria Neale2. 1. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 2. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, USA. 3. Department of Family Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. 4. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. 5. Departments of Family Medicine and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 6. Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. 7. Department of Family Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 8. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) conduct research in community settings, which poses quality control challenges to the integrity of research, such as study implementation and data collection. A foundation for improving research processes within PBRNs is needed to ensure research integrity. METHODS: Network directors and coordinators from seven U.S.-based PBRNs worked with a professional team facilitator during semiannual in-person meetings and monthly conference calls to produce content for a compendium of recommended research practices specific to the context of PBRNs. Participants were assigned to contribute content congruent with their expertise. Feedback on the draft document was obtained from attendees at the preconference workshop at the annual PBRN meeting in 2013. A revised document was circulated to additional PBRN peers prior to finalization. RESULTS: The PBRN Research Good Practices (PRGPs) document is organized into four chapters: (1) Building PBRN Infrastructure; (2) Study Development and Implementation; (3) Data Management, and (4) Dissemination Policies. Each chapter contains an introduction, detailed procedures for each section, and example resources with information links. CONCLUSION: The PRGPs is a PBRN-specific resource to facilitate PBRN management and staff training, to promote adherence to study protocols, and to increase validity and generalizability of study findings.
INTRODUCTION: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) conduct research in community settings, which poses quality control challenges to the integrity of research, such as study implementation and data collection. A foundation for improving research processes within PBRNs is needed to ensure research integrity. METHODS: Network directors and coordinators from seven U.S.-based PBRNs worked with a professional team facilitator during semiannual in-person meetings and monthly conference calls to produce content for a compendium of recommended research practices specific to the context of PBRNs. Participants were assigned to contribute content congruent with their expertise. Feedback on the draft document was obtained from attendees at the preconference workshop at the annual PBRN meeting in 2013. A revised document was circulated to additional PBRN peers prior to finalization. RESULTS: The PBRN Research Good Practices (PRGPs) document is organized into four chapters: (1) Building PBRN Infrastructure; (2) Study Development and Implementation; (3) Data Management, and (4) Dissemination Policies. Each chapter contains an introduction, detailed procedures for each section, and example resources with information links. CONCLUSION: The PRGPs is a PBRN-specific resource to facilitate PBRN management and staff training, to promote adherence to study protocols, and to increase validity and generalizability of study findings.
Authors: Kevin A Peterson; Paula Darby Lipman; Carol J Lange; Rachel A Cohen; Steve Durako Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Kimberly Campbell-Voytal; Jeanette M Daly; Zsolt J Nagykaldi; Cheryl B Aspy; Rowena J Dolor; Lyle J Fagnan; Barcey T Levy; Hannah L Palac; LeAnn Michaels; V Beth Patterson; Miria Kano; Paul D Smith; Andrew L Sussman; Robert Williams; Pamela Sterling; Maeve O'Beirne; Anne Victoria Neale Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Anne H Gaglioti; James J Werner; George Rust; Lyle J Fagnan; Anne Victoria Neale Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Sanne Peters; Samantha Paubrey Chakraborty; Christopher Barton; Elizabeth Ann Sturgiss; Danielle Mazza; Maria De Leon-Santiago; Timothy Staunton-Smith; Grant Russell Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Karen M Goldstein; Jennifer M Gierisch; Matthew Tucker; John W Williams; Rowena J Dolor; Wendy Henderson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 6.473