Literature DB >> 26355136

Clinician and Staff Perspectives on Participating in Practice-based Research (PBR): A Report from the Wisconsin Research and Education Network (WREN).

Amanda E Hoffmann1, Erin K Leege1, Mary Beth Plane1, Katherine A Judge1, Amy L Irwin1, Regina M Vidaver1, David L Hahn2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The success of practice-based research (PBR) depends on the willingness of clinicians and staff to incorporate meaningful and useful research protocols into already demanding clinic schedules. The impact of participation on those who implement multiple projects and how to address the issues that arise during this complex process remain incompletely described. This article reports a qualitative evaluation of the experiences of primary care clinicians and clinic staff who participated in multiple PBR projects with the Wisconsin Research and Education Network (WREN). Also included are their suggestions to researchers and clinicians for future collaborations.
METHODS: For program evaluation purposes, WREN conducted 4 focus groups at its 2014 annual meeting. The main focus group question was, "How has participation in PBR affected you and your clinic?" A total of 27 project members from 13 clinics participated in 4 groups (physicians, nurses, managers, and other clinical staff). The 2-hour sessions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed to identify recurring themes.
RESULTS: Five major focus group themes emerged: receptivity to research, outcomes as a result of participation, barriers to implementation, facilitators of success, and advice to researchers and colleagues. Focus group members find research valuable and enjoy participating in projects that are relevant to their practice, even though many barriers exist. They indicated that research participation produces clinical changes that they believe result in improved patient care. They offered ways to improve the research process, with particular emphasis on collaborative early planning, project development, and communication before, during, and after a project.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinics that participate in WREN projects remain willing to risk potential work constraints because of immediate or impending benefits to their clinical practice and/or patient population. Including a broader array of clinic personnel in the communication processes, especially in the development of relevant research ideas and planning for clinic implementation and ongoing participation in research projects, would address many of the barriers identified in implementing PBR. The themes and supporting quotes identified in this evaluation of WREN projects may inform researchers planning to collaborate with primary care clinics and clinicians and staff considering participating in research endeavors. © Copyright 2015 by the American Board of Family Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Practice-based Research; Primary Health Care; Program Evaluation

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26355136      PMCID: PMC4934613          DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2015.05.150038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med        ISSN: 1557-2625            Impact factor:   2.657


  18 in total

1.  Practice-based research networks answer primary care questions.

Authors:  P A Nutting; J W Beasley; J J Werner
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-02-24       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Practice benefit from participating in a practice-based research network study of postpartum depression: a national research network (NRN) report.

Authors:  Barbara P Yawn; Wilson Pace; Allen Dietrich; Susan Bertram; Margary Kurland; Deborah Graham; Jessica Huff; Liliana Rocca; Peter Wollan
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.657

3.  Practice-based research--"Blue Highways" on the NIH roadmap.

Authors:  John M Westfall; James Mold; Lyle Fagnan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-01-24       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Development and operation of the Wisconsin Research Network.

Authors:  J W Beasley; N S Cox; B T Livingston; J E Davis; P McBride; T L Hankey; R Shropshire; R G Roberts
Journal:  Wis Med J       Date:  1991-09

5.  Rate of case reporting, physician compliance, and practice volume in a practice-based research network study.

Authors:  J L Temte; J W Beasley
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 0.493

6.  Factors associated with research interest and activity during family practice residency.

Authors:  J L Temte; P H Hunter; J W Beasley
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 1.756

7.  Reports of persistent change in the clinical encounter following research participation: a report from the Primary Care Multiethnic Network (PRIME Net).

Authors:  Robert Rhyne; Andrew L Sussman; Doug Fernald; Nancy Weller; Elvan Daniels; Robert L Williams
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med       Date:  2011 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.657

8.  Barriers, enablers, and incentives for research participation: a report from the Ambulatory Care Research Network (ACRN).

Authors:  Suzanne Bakken; Rafael A Lantigua; Linda V Busacca; J Thomas Bigger
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med       Date:  2009 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.657

9.  An assessment of the perceived benefits and challenges of participating in a practice-based research network.

Authors:  F A Curro; V P Thompson; A Grill; R G Craig; M B Botello-Harbaum; A G Matthews; D Collie
Journal:  Prim Dent J       Date:  2012-10

10.  The relationship between Clinical Trial Network protocol involvement and quality of substance use disorder treatment.

Authors:  Amanda J Abraham; Hannah K Knudsen; Paul M Roman
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2013-09-27
View more
  5 in total

1.  Music Therapist Experiences of a Randomized Controlled Trial as Clinician Researchers.

Authors:  Amanda K Henley; Elizabeth Collier; Kim Robertson; Marial A Biard; Kathryn Bruno; Hannah Bush; Erinn Frees; Caitlin Krater; Sarah Woolever; Debra S Burns; Sheri L Robb
Journal:  J Music Ther       Date:  2020-07-18

2.  Clinicians' perspectives on and interest in participating in a clinical data research network across the Southeastern United States.

Authors:  Kim M Unertl; Alecia M Fair; Jacquelyn S Favours; Rowena J Dolor; Duane Smoot; Consuelo H Wilkins
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-07-20       Impact factor: 2.655

3.  Facilitators and Barriers to Recruiting Ambulatory Oncology Practices Into a Large Multisite Study: Mixed Methods Study.

Authors:  Milisa Manojlovich; Louise Bedard; Jennifer J Griggs; Michaella McBratnie; Kari Mendelsohn-Victor; Christopher R Friese
Journal:  JMIR Cancer       Date:  2020-04-20

4.  The University of Limerick Education and Research Network for General Practice (ULEARN-GP): practice characteristics and general practitioner perspectives.

Authors:  Andrew O'Regan; Peter Hayes; Ray O'Connor; Monica Casey; Pat O'Dwyer; Aidan Culhane; Patrick O'Donnell; Gary Stack; John Cuddihy; Billy O'Connell; Jerry O'Flynn; Walter Cullen; Jane O'Doherty; Maurice O'Connell; Liam Glynn
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2020-02-05       Impact factor: 2.497

5.  General practitioners' willingness to participate in research networks in Germany.

Authors:  Larissa Virnau; Annett Braesigk; Tobias Deutsch; Alexander Bauer; Eric Sven Kroeber; Markus Bleckwenn; Thomas Frese; Heidrun Lingner
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 3.147

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.