Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20182121›Full record

ArticleAcademic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges2010

Linking practice-based research networks and Clinical and Translational Science Awards: new opportunities for community engagement by academic health centers.

Lyle J Fagnan, Melinda Davis, Richard A Deyo, James J Werner, Kurt C Stange

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Benefits of Patient Involvement for Translational Research.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2017
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Beyond bench and bedside: disentangling the concept of translational research.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2015
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lyle J FagnanOregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239-3098, USA. fagnanl@ohsu.edu
Melinda Davis
Richard A Deyo
James J Werner
Kurt C Stange

Funding

OREGON CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE INSTITUTEUL1RR024140 · NCRR · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI ORWOLL, ERIC S. · 2006 to 2011
$61.1M
Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of ClevelandUL1TR000439 · NCATS · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI KONSTAN, MICHAEL W. · 2012 to 2016
$50.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000439NCRR NIH HHS 1 UL1 RR024140-01NCRR NIH HHS U54 RR023564)NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024140
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePractice-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.

methodThe 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.

resultsA 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.

conclusionsWith 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.

Indexed as

Academic Medical CentersAwards and PrizesBiomedical ResearchCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchTranslational Research, BiomedicalUnited States

Identifiers

PMID20182121
PMCPMC4059036

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.