Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23044836›Full record

ArticleHealth care management review

The business case for provider participation in clinical trials research: an application to the National Cancer Institute's community clinical oncology program.

Paula H Song, Kristin L Reiter, Bryan J Weiner, Lori Minasian, Ann Scheck McAlearney

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health care management review. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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.

Paula H SongPaula H. Song, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Division of Health Services Management and Policy, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus. E-mail: psong@cph.osu.edu. Kristin L. Reiter, PhD, is Associate Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. E-mail: reiter@email.unc.edu. Bryan J. Weiner, PhD, is Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. E-mail: weiner@email.unc.edu. Lori Minasian, MD, is Chief, Community Oncology and Prevention Trials Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. E-mail: minasilo@mail.nih.gov. Ann Scheck McAlearney, ScD, is Professor, Department of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, and Professor, Division of Health Services Management and Policy, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus. E-mail: Ann.McAlearney@osumc.edu.
Kristin L Reiter
Bryan J Weiner
Lori Minasian
Ann Scheck McAlearney

Funding

Implementing Systemic Interventions to Close the Discovery-Delivery GapR01CA124402 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI WEINER, BRYAN J. · 2007 to 2012
$2.8M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA124402NCI NIH HHS R01CA124402
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProvider-based research networks (PBRNs) make clinical trials available in community-based practice settings, where most people receive their care, but provider participation requires both financial and in-kind contributions. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore whether providers believe there is a business case for participating in PBRNs and what factors contribute to the business case. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We use a multiple case study methodology approach to examine the National Cancer Institute's community clinical oncology program, a long-standing federally funded PBRN. Interviews with 41 key informants across five sites, selected on the basis of organizational maturity, were conducted using a semistructured interview guide. We analyzed interview transcripts using an iterative, deductive process to identify themes and subthemes in the data.

findingsWe found that a business case for provider participation in PBRNs may exist if both direct and indirect financial benefits are identified and included in the analysis and if the time horizon is long enough to allow those benefits to be realized. We identified specific direct and indirect financial benefits that were perceived as important contributors to the business case and the perceived length of time required for a positive return to accrue. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: As the lack of a business case may result in provider reluctance to participate in PBRNs, knowledge of the benefits we identified may be crucial to encouraging and sustaining participation, thereby preserving patient access to innovative community-based treatments. The results are also relevant to federally funded PBRNs outside of oncology or to providers considering participation in any clinical trials research.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicHealth Care SectorNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)CommerceCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug IndustryHumansInterinstitutional RelationsInterviews as TopicMedical OncologyUnited States

Identifiers

PMID23044836
PMCPMC3594627

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.