Anita A Vashi1, Elizabeth A Orvek2, Anaïs Tuepker3, George L Jackson4, Allison Amrhein5, Brynn Cole5, Steven M Asch6, Allen L Gifford7, Jennifer Lindquist8, Nell J Marshall9, Summer Newell10, Melissa A Smigelsky11, Brandolyn S White8, Lindsay K White12, Sarah L Cutrona13. 1. Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Emergency Medicine (Affiliated), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. Electronic address: anita.vashi@va.gov. 2. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, MA, USA; Quantitative Methods Core, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. 3. Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care (CIVIC), VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR, USA; Department of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 4. Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA; Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration Innovators Network, USA. 6. Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA; Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 7. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Boston University, Boston, MA, USA. 8. Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA. 9. Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 10. Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care (CIVIC), VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR, USA. 11. Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA; Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 6 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC), Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA. 12. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, MA, USA. 13. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, MA, USA; Division of Health Informatics and Implementation Science, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Collaboration between researchers, implementers and policymakers improves uptake of health systems research. In 2018, researchers and VHA Innovators Network (iNET) leadership used an embedded research model to conduct an evaluation of iNET. We describe our evaluation design, early results, and lessons learned. METHODS: This mixed-methods evaluation incorporated primary data collection via electronic survey, descriptive analysis using existing VA datasets (examining associations between facility characteristics and iNET participation), and qualitative interviews to support real-time program implementation and to probe perceived impacts, benefits and challenges of participation. RESULTS: We developed reporting tools and collected data regarding site participation, providing iNET leadership rapid access to needed information on projects (e.g., target populations reached, milestones achieved, and barriers encountered). Secondary data analyses indicated iNET membership was greater among larger, more complex VA facilities. Of the 37 iNET member sites, over half (n = 22) did not have any of the six major types of VA research centers; thus iNET is supporting VA sites not traditionally served by research innovation pathways. Qualitative findings highlighted enhanced engagement and perceived value of social and informational networks. CONCLUSIONS: Working alongside our iNET partners, we supported and influenced iNET's development through our embedded evaluation's preliminary findings. We also provided training and guidance aimed at building capacity among iNET participants. IMPLICATIONS: Embedded research can yield successful collaborative efforts between researchers and partners. An embedded research team can help programs pivot to ensure effective use of limited resources. Such models inform program development and expansion, supporting strategic planning and demonstrating value. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Collaboration between researchers, implementers and policymakers improves uptake of health systems research. In 2018, researchers and VHA Innovators Network (iNET) leadership used an embedded research model to conduct an evaluation of iNET. We describe our evaluation design, early results, and lessons learned. METHODS: This mixed-methods evaluation incorporated primary data collection via electronic survey, descriptive analysis using existing VA datasets (examining associations between facility characteristics and iNET participation), and qualitative interviews to support real-time program implementation and to probe perceived impacts, benefits and challenges of participation. RESULTS: We developed reporting tools and collected data regarding site participation, providing iNET leadership rapid access to needed information on projects (e.g., target populations reached, milestones achieved, and barriers encountered). Secondary data analyses indicated iNET membership was greater among larger, more complex VA facilities. Of the 37 iNET member sites, over half (n = 22) did not have any of the six major types of VA research centers; thus iNET is supporting VA sites not traditionally served by research innovation pathways. Qualitative findings highlighted enhanced engagement and perceived value of social and informational networks. CONCLUSIONS: Working alongside our iNET partners, we supported and influenced iNET's development through our embedded evaluation's preliminary findings. We also provided training and guidance aimed at building capacity among iNET participants. IMPLICATIONS: Embedded research can yield successful collaborative efforts between researchers and partners. An embedded research team can help programs pivot to ensure effective use of limited resources. Such models inform program development and expansion, supporting strategic planning and demonstrating value. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Ryan Vega; George L Jackson; Blake Henderson; Carolyn Clancy; Jennifer McPhail; Sarah L Cutrona; Laura J Damschroder; Saurabha Bhatnagar Journal: Perm J Date: 2019-09-19
Authors: Martin Marshall; Christina Pagel; Catherine French; Martin Utley; Dominique Allwood; Naomi Fulop; Catherine Pope; Victoria Banks; Allan Goldmann Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Cecilia Vindrola-Padros; Laura Eyre; Helen Baxter; Helen Cramer; Bethan George; Lesley Wye; Naomi J Fulop; Martin Utley; Natasha Phillips; Peter Brindle; Martin Marshall Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: George L Jackson; Laura J Damschroder; Brandolyn S White; Blake Henderson; Ryan J Vega; Amy M Kilbourne; Sarah L Cutrona Journal: Learn Health Syst Date: 2021-11-03