Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26355136›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM

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

Amanda E Hoffmann, Erin K Leege, Mary Beth Plane, Katherine A Judge, Amy L Irwin, Regina M Vidaver, David L Hahn

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

7 authors.

Amanda E HoffmannFrom the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, Madison, WI.
Erin K LeegeFrom the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, Madison, WI.
Mary Beth PlaneFrom the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, Madison, WI.
Katherine A JudgeFrom the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, Madison, WI.
Amy L IrwinFrom the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, Madison, WI.
Regina M VidaverFrom the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, Madison, WI.
David L HahnFrom the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, Madison, WI. dlhahn@wisc.edu.

Funding

Institutional Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000427 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI DREZNER, MARC KENNETH · 2012 to 2016
$32.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000427
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

methodsFor 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.

resultsFive 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.

conclusionsClinics 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.

Indexed as

PhysiciansProgram EvaluationQuality Assurance, Health CareCooperative BehaviorFocus GroupsHealth Services ResearchHumansPrimary Health CareResearch PersonnelWisconsinPractice-based ResearchPrimary Health CareProgram Evaluation

Identifiers

PMID26355136
PMCPMC4934613

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.