Linking practice-based research networks and clinical and translational science awards: New opportunities for community engagement by academic health centers

Lyle Fagnan, Melinda Davis, Richard (Rick) Deyo, James J. Werner, Kurt C. Stange

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

39 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are a part of many National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) sites. PBRNs, groups of primary care practices committed to collaborating on practice-relevant research, are unfamiliar to many CTSA leaders. Conversely, the CTSAs, as new research structures designed to transform clinical research, are unfamiliar to many PBRN directors. This study examined the extent to which these programs have congruent goals and expectations, and whether their engagement is likely to be mutually beneficial. Method: The authors sent a Web-based survey to 38 CTSA community engagement directors and a similar survey to 114 PBRN directors during the fall of 2008. Results: A total of 66% (25/38) CTSA community engagement directors and 61% (69/114) PBRN directors responded. Two thirds of responding CTSAs reported working with PBRNs, and over half of responding PBRNs reported a CTSA affiliation. Both groups indicated this relationship was important. CTSAs looked to PBRNs for access to patients and expertise in engaging communities and clinical practices. PBRNs reported seeking stable infrastructure support and greater collaboration and visibility in the academic research community. PBRN infrastructure support from CTSAs was highly variable. Both groups perceived considerable promise for building sustainable relationships and a bidirectional flow of information and research opportunities. Conclusions: With fewer than three years of experience, the PBRN/CTSA relationship remains in the discovery phase; the participants are still negotiating expectations. If these collaborations prove mutually beneficial, they may advance the community engagement goals of many academic health centers.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)476-483
Number of pages8
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume85
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2010

Fingerprint

Health
science
health
Research
community
director
infrastructure
Group
research practice
Negotiating
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
expertise
Primary Health Care
leader

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Education

Cite this

@article{8a6b9bbb8fb34540a0a292d88941590f,
title = "Linking practice-based research networks and clinical and translational science awards: New opportunities for community engagement by academic health centers",
abstract = "Purpose: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are a part of many National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) sites. PBRNs, groups of primary care practices committed to collaborating on practice-relevant research, are unfamiliar to many CTSA leaders. Conversely, the CTSAs, as new research structures designed to transform clinical research, are unfamiliar to many PBRN directors. This study examined the extent to which these programs have congruent goals and expectations, and whether their engagement is likely to be mutually beneficial. Method: The authors sent a Web-based survey to 38 CTSA community engagement directors and a similar survey to 114 PBRN directors during the fall of 2008. Results: A total of 66{\%} (25/38) CTSA community engagement directors and 61{\%} (69/114) PBRN directors responded. Two thirds of responding CTSAs reported working with PBRNs, and over half of responding PBRNs reported a CTSA affiliation. Both groups indicated this relationship was important. CTSAs looked to PBRNs for access to patients and expertise in engaging communities and clinical practices. PBRNs reported seeking stable infrastructure support and greater collaboration and visibility in the academic research community. PBRN infrastructure support from CTSAs was highly variable. Both groups perceived considerable promise for building sustainable relationships and a bidirectional flow of information and research opportunities. Conclusions: With fewer than three years of experience, the PBRN/CTSA relationship remains in the discovery phase; the participants are still negotiating expectations. If these collaborations prove mutually beneficial, they may advance the community engagement goals of many academic health centers.",
author = "Lyle Fagnan and Melinda Davis and Deyo, {Richard (Rick)} and Werner, {James J.} and Stange, {Kurt C.}",
year = "2010",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181cd2ed3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "85",
pages = "476--483",
journal = "Academic Medicine",
issn = "1040-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Linking practice-based research networks and clinical and translational science awards

T2 - New opportunities for community engagement by academic health centers

AU - Fagnan, Lyle

AU - Davis, Melinda

AU - Deyo, Richard (Rick)

AU - Werner, James J.

AU - Stange, Kurt C.

PY - 2010/3

Y1 - 2010/3

N2 - Purpose: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are a part of many National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) sites. PBRNs, groups of primary care practices committed to collaborating on practice-relevant research, are unfamiliar to many CTSA leaders. Conversely, the CTSAs, as new research structures designed to transform clinical research, are unfamiliar to many PBRN directors. This study examined the extent to which these programs have congruent goals and expectations, and whether their engagement is likely to be mutually beneficial. Method: The authors sent a Web-based survey to 38 CTSA community engagement directors and a similar survey to 114 PBRN directors during the fall of 2008. Results: A total of 66% (25/38) CTSA community engagement directors and 61% (69/114) PBRN directors responded. Two thirds of responding CTSAs reported working with PBRNs, and over half of responding PBRNs reported a CTSA affiliation. Both groups indicated this relationship was important. CTSAs looked to PBRNs for access to patients and expertise in engaging communities and clinical practices. PBRNs reported seeking stable infrastructure support and greater collaboration and visibility in the academic research community. PBRN infrastructure support from CTSAs was highly variable. Both groups perceived considerable promise for building sustainable relationships and a bidirectional flow of information and research opportunities. Conclusions: With fewer than three years of experience, the PBRN/CTSA relationship remains in the discovery phase; the participants are still negotiating expectations. If these collaborations prove mutually beneficial, they may advance the community engagement goals of many academic health centers.

AB - Purpose: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are a part of many National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) sites. PBRNs, groups of primary care practices committed to collaborating on practice-relevant research, are unfamiliar to many CTSA leaders. Conversely, the CTSAs, as new research structures designed to transform clinical research, are unfamiliar to many PBRN directors. This study examined the extent to which these programs have congruent goals and expectations, and whether their engagement is likely to be mutually beneficial. Method: The authors sent a Web-based survey to 38 CTSA community engagement directors and a similar survey to 114 PBRN directors during the fall of 2008. Results: A total of 66% (25/38) CTSA community engagement directors and 61% (69/114) PBRN directors responded. Two thirds of responding CTSAs reported working with PBRNs, and over half of responding PBRNs reported a CTSA affiliation. Both groups indicated this relationship was important. CTSAs looked to PBRNs for access to patients and expertise in engaging communities and clinical practices. PBRNs reported seeking stable infrastructure support and greater collaboration and visibility in the academic research community. PBRN infrastructure support from CTSAs was highly variable. Both groups perceived considerable promise for building sustainable relationships and a bidirectional flow of information and research opportunities. Conclusions: With fewer than three years of experience, the PBRN/CTSA relationship remains in the discovery phase; the participants are still negotiating expectations. If these collaborations prove mutually beneficial, they may advance the community engagement goals of many academic health centers.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77649230708&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77649230708&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181cd2ed3

DO - 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181cd2ed3

M3 - Article

C2 - 20182121

AN - SCOPUS:77649230708

VL - 85

SP - 476

EP - 483

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SN - 1040-2446

IS - 3

ER -