The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Practice-based Research Network (PBRN) relationship: Delivering on an opportunity, challenges, and future directions

Wilson D. Pace, Lyle Fagnan, David R. West

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) often lack sufficient funding to develop the underlying infrastructure necessary to conduct high-quality, pragmatic, policy-relevant studies. One mechanism introduced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) that held the potential to address this issue was the PBRN Master Contract Program. The program allows the AHRQ to fund tightly focused "research activities" and to create a partnership through the PBRN contracts. Although PBRNs expected Master Contracts to strengthen them, several issues limit the utility of these contracts. The funding levels are lower than that provided from other sources for comparable work. Although some Task Order Officers are diligent, responsive, and supportive, too frequently their zeal for specific results and heavy handed approaches have led to significant "scope creep" and unrealistic expectations. Finally, a mechanism to allow PBRNs and network clinicians to influence the direction of the research questions has not been well developed. We see value in a new approach that supports the ability of the AHRQ to (1) garner support from other government agencies to engage PBRNs in studies relevant to policymakers and PBRNs; (2) capitalize on the collaborative nature of PBRNs by developing projects that support collaboration; (3) provide modest funding for infrastructure; (4) avoid the unnecessary and costly regulatory oversight from OMB; and (5) develop sustained "lines of research" on a scale, currently unavailable through the Master Contract, that can meaningfully contribute to the shaping of health policy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)489-492
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Volume24
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2011

Fingerprint

Health Services Research
Research
Contracts
Partnership Practice
Direction compound
Government Agencies
Financial Management
Health Policy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Family Practice

Cite this

@article{22e4092151d34f228eed972cc38ddbb3,
title = "The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Practice-based Research Network (PBRN) relationship: Delivering on an opportunity, challenges, and future directions",
abstract = "Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) often lack sufficient funding to develop the underlying infrastructure necessary to conduct high-quality, pragmatic, policy-relevant studies. One mechanism introduced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) that held the potential to address this issue was the PBRN Master Contract Program. The program allows the AHRQ to fund tightly focused {"}research activities{"} and to create a partnership through the PBRN contracts. Although PBRNs expected Master Contracts to strengthen them, several issues limit the utility of these contracts. The funding levels are lower than that provided from other sources for comparable work. Although some Task Order Officers are diligent, responsive, and supportive, too frequently their zeal for specific results and heavy handed approaches have led to significant {"}scope creep{"} and unrealistic expectations. Finally, a mechanism to allow PBRNs and network clinicians to influence the direction of the research questions has not been well developed. We see value in a new approach that supports the ability of the AHRQ to (1) garner support from other government agencies to engage PBRNs in studies relevant to policymakers and PBRNs; (2) capitalize on the collaborative nature of PBRNs by developing projects that support collaboration; (3) provide modest funding for infrastructure; (4) avoid the unnecessary and costly regulatory oversight from OMB; and (5) develop sustained {"}lines of research{"} on a scale, currently unavailable through the Master Contract, that can meaningfully contribute to the shaping of health policy.",
author = "Pace, {Wilson D.} and Lyle Fagnan and West, {David R.}",
year = "2011",
month = "9",
doi = "10.3122/jabfm.2011.05.110080",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "489--492",
journal = "Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine",
issn = "1557-2625",
publisher = "American Board of Family Medicine",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Practice-based Research Network (PBRN) relationship

T2 - Delivering on an opportunity, challenges, and future directions

AU - Pace, Wilson D.

AU - Fagnan, Lyle

AU - West, David R.

PY - 2011/9

Y1 - 2011/9

N2 - Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) often lack sufficient funding to develop the underlying infrastructure necessary to conduct high-quality, pragmatic, policy-relevant studies. One mechanism introduced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) that held the potential to address this issue was the PBRN Master Contract Program. The program allows the AHRQ to fund tightly focused "research activities" and to create a partnership through the PBRN contracts. Although PBRNs expected Master Contracts to strengthen them, several issues limit the utility of these contracts. The funding levels are lower than that provided from other sources for comparable work. Although some Task Order Officers are diligent, responsive, and supportive, too frequently their zeal for specific results and heavy handed approaches have led to significant "scope creep" and unrealistic expectations. Finally, a mechanism to allow PBRNs and network clinicians to influence the direction of the research questions has not been well developed. We see value in a new approach that supports the ability of the AHRQ to (1) garner support from other government agencies to engage PBRNs in studies relevant to policymakers and PBRNs; (2) capitalize on the collaborative nature of PBRNs by developing projects that support collaboration; (3) provide modest funding for infrastructure; (4) avoid the unnecessary and costly regulatory oversight from OMB; and (5) develop sustained "lines of research" on a scale, currently unavailable through the Master Contract, that can meaningfully contribute to the shaping of health policy.

AB - Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) often lack sufficient funding to develop the underlying infrastructure necessary to conduct high-quality, pragmatic, policy-relevant studies. One mechanism introduced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) that held the potential to address this issue was the PBRN Master Contract Program. The program allows the AHRQ to fund tightly focused "research activities" and to create a partnership through the PBRN contracts. Although PBRNs expected Master Contracts to strengthen them, several issues limit the utility of these contracts. The funding levels are lower than that provided from other sources for comparable work. Although some Task Order Officers are diligent, responsive, and supportive, too frequently their zeal for specific results and heavy handed approaches have led to significant "scope creep" and unrealistic expectations. Finally, a mechanism to allow PBRNs and network clinicians to influence the direction of the research questions has not been well developed. We see value in a new approach that supports the ability of the AHRQ to (1) garner support from other government agencies to engage PBRNs in studies relevant to policymakers and PBRNs; (2) capitalize on the collaborative nature of PBRNs by developing projects that support collaboration; (3) provide modest funding for infrastructure; (4) avoid the unnecessary and costly regulatory oversight from OMB; and (5) develop sustained "lines of research" on a scale, currently unavailable through the Master Contract, that can meaningfully contribute to the shaping of health policy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80052895864&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80052895864&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3122/jabfm.2011.05.110080

DO - 10.3122/jabfm.2011.05.110080

M3 - Article

C2 - 21900429

AN - SCOPUS:80052895864

VL - 24

SP - 489

EP - 492

JO - Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

JF - Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

SN - 1557-2625

IS - 5

ER -