Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31517789›Full record

ArticleMedical care2019

Research Lifecycle to Increase the Substantial Real-world Impact of Research: Accelerating Innovations to Application.

Amy M Kilbourne, Melissa Z Braganza, Nicholas W Bowersox, David E Goodrich, Isomi Miake-Lye, Nicole Floyd, Melissa M Garrido, Austin B Frakt, Christopher T Bever, Ryan Vega and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Grading Evidence to Support Legislative and Budget Proposals-Veterans Health Administration's Key to Implementing the Evidence Act.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

11 authors.

Amy M KilbourneVeterans Health Administration, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Melissa Z BraganzaVeterans Health Administration, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Nicholas W BowersoxDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Michigan Medical School.
David E GoodrichCenter for Evaluation and Implementation Resources, VA Ann Arbor Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI.
Isomi Miake-LyeCenter for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation & Policy, VA Greater Los Angles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA.
Nicole FloydEvidence Synthesis Program Coordinating Center, Portland VA Health Care System, Portland, OR.
Melissa M GarridoPartnered Evidence-based Policy Resource Center, Boston VA Healthcare System.
Austin B FraktPartnered Evidence-based Policy Resource Center, Boston VA Healthcare System.
Christopher T BeverVeterans Health Administration, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Ryan VegaVeterans Health Administration, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Rachel RamoniVeterans Health Administration, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUS health care systems face a growing demand to incorporate innovations that improve patient outcomes at a lower cost. Funding agencies increasingly must demonstrate the impact of research investments on public health. The Learning Health System promotes continuous institutional innovation, yet specific processes to develop innovations for further research and implementation into real-world health care settings to maximize health impacts have not been specified.

objectiveWe describe the Research Lifecycle and how it leverages institutional priorities to support the translation of research discoveries to clinical application, serving as a broader operational approach to enhance the Learning Health System.

methodsDeveloped by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development Research-to-Real-World Workgroup, the Research Lifecycle incorporates frameworks from product development, translational science, and implementation science methods. The Lifecycle is based on Workgroup recommendations to overcome barriers to more direct translation of innovations to clinical application and support practice implementation and sustainability.

resultsThe Research Lifecycle posits 5 phases which support a seamless pathway from discovery to implementation: prioritization (leadership priority alignment), discovery (innovation development), validation (clinical, operational feasibility), scale-up and spread (implementation strategies, performance monitoring), and sustainability (business case, workforce training). An example of how the Research Lifecycle has been applied within a health system is provided.

conclusionsThe Research Lifecycle aligns research and health system investments to maximize real-world practice impact via a feasible pathway, where priority-driven innovations are adapted for effective clinical use and supported through implementation strategies, leading to continuous improvement in real-world health care.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareDiffusion of InnovationTranslational Research, BiomedicalHealth ResourcesHumansQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID31517789
PMCPMC6750195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.