Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30029660›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Clinicians' perspectives on and interest in participating in a clinical data research network across the Southeastern United States.

Kim M Unertl, Alecia M Fair, Jacquelyn S Favours, Rowena J Dolor, Duane Smoot, Consuelo H Wilkins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

6 authors.

Kim M UnertlDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA.
Alecia M FairDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0144-1425
Jacquelyn S FavoursVanderbilt School of Medicine and the Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, TN, 37208, USA.
Rowena J DolorDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Duane SmootDepartment of Internal Medicine, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, 37208, USA.
Consuelo H WilkinsVanderbilt School of Medicine and the Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, TN, 37208, USA. Consuelo.H.Wilkins@meharry-vanderbilt.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPartnerships between clinicians and researchers could increase the generalizability of research findings and increase uptake of research results across populations. Yet engaging clinicians in research is challenging. Clinical Data Research Networks (CDRNs) provide access to a broad array of clinical data, patients, clinicians and health systems by building on existing health records (EHRs) to facilitate multi-site community engaged research (CEnR).

methodsA mixed-methods sequential explanatory design was employed. Sixty semi-structured interviews with clinicians from various disciplines and healthcare settings were conducted using five open-ended questions. Inductive content analysis was used to identify emerging themes in the data.

resultsWe identified the following emerging themes: 1) Research with relevance and benefits to clinics and provider's patient population; 2) Difficulties of engaging in research with existing patient care demands; 3) Clear and continuous two-way communication about research, coordinated with provider and clinic needs; 4) Tailored compensation approaches meet provider preferences; 5) Increasing clinician awareness about Clinical Data Research Networks (CDRNs).

conclusionOur interview study provides insight into community clinician perspectives on Clinical Data Research Networks, indicating motivations and challenges to research involvement including consequences of time spent on research participation, barriers to expanding research and meaningful involvement in research governance. Findings can be used to guide the development of strategies to better engage providers in research in clinical settings, which could ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelInterprofessional RelationsPhysiciansResearch PersonnelBiomedical ResearchCommunicationHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchSoutheastern United StatesClinical data research networkCliniciansQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID30029660
PMCPMC6053753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.