ArticleClinical and translational science2015
Evaluating the Development, Implementation and Dissemination of a Multisite Card Study in the WWAMI Region Practice and Research Network.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient concerns about accessing sexual and reproductive health services outside of primary care: A survey in rural and urban settings in the Pacific Northwest.Contraception · 2023Article
- Promoting learning health system feedback loops: Experience with a VA practice-based research network card study.Healthcare (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Family Medicine-Specific Practice-Based Research Network Productivity and Clinical and Translational Sciences Award Program Affiliation.Southern medical journal · 2017Article
- Designing and Implementing an Electronic Health Record-Embedded Card Study in Primary Care: Methods and Considerations.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPractice-based research networks (PBRNs) promote the conduct of research in real-world settings by engaging primary care clinicians as champion research collaborators. Card studies are brief surveys administered to patients or clinicians at the point of care. The objective of this paper is to describe the design and evaluation of a card study methodology that the WWAMI Region Practice and Research Network (WPRN) used to develop research partnerships across multiple member sites.
methodsWe used a collaborative model to develop, implement and disseminate the results of a network-wide card study to assess patient preferences for weight loss in primary care. After the card study data collection was completed, we conducted individual and focus group interviews and a brief survey of participating practice champions.
resultsIncreased research engagement and personal and professional developments were the primary motivators for participating in the development of the card study. Increasing research activity at practices and learning information about patients were motivators for implementing the study. Their participation resulted in champions reporting increased confidence in collaborating on research projects as well as the development of new clinical services for patients. DISCUSSION: This collaborative model positively influenced research capacity in the WPRN and may be a useful strategy for helping PBRNs conducted translational research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.