Collaborative research between clinicians and researchers: a multiple case study of implementation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bottom-up, clinician-conceived and directed clinical intervention research, coupled with collaboration from researcher experts, is conceptually endorsed by the participatory research movement. This report presents the findings of an evaluation of a program in the Veterans Health Administration meant to encourage clinician-driven research by providing resources believed to be critical. The evaluation focused on the extent to which funded projects: maintained integrity to their original proposals; were methodologically rigorous; were characterized by collaboration between partners; and resulted in sustained clinical impact.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Researchers used quantitative (survey and archival) and qualitative (focus group) data to evaluate the implementation, evaluation, and sustainability of four clinical demonstration projects at four sites. Fourteen research center mentors and seventeen clinician researchers evaluated the level of collaboration using a six-dimensional model of participatory research.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Results yielded mixed findings. Qualitative and quantitative data suggested that although the process was collaborative, clinicians' prior research experience was critical to the quality of the projects. Several challenges were common across sites, including subject recruitment, administrative support and logistics, and subsequent dissemination. Only one intervention achieved lasting clinical effect beyond the active project period. Qualitative analyses identified barriers and facilitators and suggested areas to improve sustainability.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Evaluation results suggest that this participatory research venture was successful in achieving clinician-directed collaboration, but did not produce sustainable interventions due to such implementation problems as lack of resources and administrative support.</p

Influence of patient symptoms and physical findings on general practitioners' treatment of respiratory tract infections: a direct observation study

BACKGROUND: The high rate of antibiotic prescriptions general practitioners (GPs) make for respiratory tract infections (RTI) are often explained by non-medical reasons e.g. an effort to meet patient expectations. Additionally, it is known that GPs to some extent believe in the necessity of antibiotic treatment in patients with assumed bacterial infections and therefore attempt to distinguish between viral and bacterial infections by history taking and physical examination. The influence of patient complaints and physical examination findings on GPs' prescribing behaviour was mostly investigated by indirect methods such as questionnaires. METHODS: Direct, structured observation during a winter "cough an cold period" in 30 (single handed) general practices. All 273 patients with symptoms of RTI (age above 14, median 37 years, 51% female) were included. RESULTS: The most frequent diagnoses were 'uncomplicated upper RTI/common cold' (43%) followed by 'bronchitis' (26%). On average, 1.8 (95%-confidence interval (CI): 1.7–2.0) medicines per patient were prescribed (cough-and-cold preparations in 88% of the patients, antibiotics in 49%). Medical predictors of antibiotic prescribing were pathological findings in physical examination such as coated tonsils (odds ratio (OR) 15.4, 95%-CI: 3.6–66.2) and unspecific symptoms like fatigue (OR 3.1, 95%-CI 1.4–6.7), fever (OR 2.2, 95%-CI: 1.1–4.5) and yellow sputum (OR 2.1, 95%-CI: 1.1–4.1). Analysed predictors explained 70% of the variance of antibiotic prescribing (R(2 )= 0,696). Efforts to reduce antibiotic prescribing, e.g. recommendations for self-medication, counselling on home remedies or delayed antibiotic prescribing were rare. CONCLUSIONS: Patient complaints and pathological results in physical examination were strong predictors of antibiotic prescribing. Efforts to reduce antibiotic prescribing should account for GPs' beliefs in those (non evidence based) predictors. The method of direct observation was shown to be accepted both by patients and GPs and offered detailed insights into the GP-patient-interaction

Practices participating in a dental PBRN have substantial and advantageous diversity even though as a group they have much in common with dentists at large

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Practice-based research networks offer important opportunities to move recent advances into routine clinical practice. If their findings are not only generalizable to dental practices at large, but can also elucidate how practice characteristics are related to treatment outcome, their importance is even further elevated. Our objective was to determine whether we met a key objective for The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN): to recruit a diverse range of practitioner-investigators interested in doing DPBRN studies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>DPBRN participants completed an enrollment questionnaire about their practices and themselves. To date, more than 1100 practitioners from the five participating regions have completed the questionnaire. The regions consist of: Alabama/Mississippi, Florida/Georgia, Minnesota, Permanente Dental Associates, and Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden). We tested the hypothesis that there are statistically significant differences in key characteristics among DPBRN practices, based on responses from dentists who participated in DPBRN's first network-wide study (n = 546).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were statistically significant, substantive regional differences among DPBRN-participating dentists, their practices, and their patient populations.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although as a group, participants have much in common with practices at large; their substantial diversity offers important advantages, such as being able to evaluate how practice differences may affect treatment outcomes, while simultaneously offering generalizability to dentists at large. This should help foster knowledge transfer in both the research-to-practice and practice-to-research directions.</p

Insights into the impact and use of research results in a residential long-term care facility: a case study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Engaging end-users of research in the process of disseminating findings may increase the relevance of findings and their impact for users. We report findings from a case study that explored how involvement with the Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) study influenced management and staff at one of 36 TREC facilities. We conducted the study at ‘Restwood’ (pseudonym) nursing home because the Director of Care engaged actively in the study and TREC data showed that this site differed on some areas from other nursing homes in the province. The aims of the case study were two-fold: to gain a better understanding of how frontline staff engage with the research process, and to gain a better understanding of how to share more detailed research results with management.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We developed an Expanded Feedback Report for use during this study. In it, we presented survey results that compared Restwood to the best performing site on all variables and participating sites in the province. Data were collected regarding the Expanded Feedback Report through interviews with management. Data from staff were collected through interviews and observation. We used content analysis to derive themes to describe key aspects related to the study aims.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We observed the importance of understanding organizational routines and the impact of key events in the facility’s environment. We gleaned additional information that validated findings from prior feedback mechanisms within TREC. Another predominant theme was the sense that the opportunity to engage in a research process was reaffirming for staff (particularly healthcare aides)—what they did and said mattered, and TREC provided a means of having one’s voice heard. We gained valuable insight from the Director of Care about how to structure and format more detailed findings to assist with interpretation and use of results.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Four themes emerged regarding staff engagement with the research process: sharing feedback reports from the TREC study; the meaning of TREC to staff; understanding organizational context; and using the study feedback for improvement at Restwood. This study has lessons for researchers on how to share research results with study participants, including management.</p

Implementing community-based provider participation in research: an empirical study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Since 2003, the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) has sought to restructure the clinical research enterprise in the United States by promoting collaborative research partnerships between academically-based investigators and community-based physicians. By increasing community-based provider participation in research (CBPPR), the NIH seeks to advance the science of discovery by conducting research in clinical settings where most people get their care, and accelerate the translation of research results into everyday clinical practice. Although CBPPR is seen as a promising strategy for promoting the use of evidence-based clinical services in community practice settings, few empirical studies have examined the organizational factors that facilitate or hinder the implementation of CBPPR. The purpose of this study is to explore the organizational start-up and early implementation of CBPPR in community-based practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used longitudinal, case study research methods and an organizational model of innovation implementation to theoretically guide our study. Our sample consisted of three community practice settings that recently joined the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) in the United States. Data were gathered through site visits, telephone interviews, and archival documents from January 2008 to May 2011.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The organizational model for innovation implementation was useful in identifying and investigating the organizational factors influencing start-up and early implementation of CBPPR in CCOP organizations. In general, the three CCOP organizations varied in the extent to which they achieved consistency in CBPPR over time and across physicians. All three CCOP organizations demonstrated mixed levels of organizational readiness for change. Hospital management support and resource availability were limited across CCOP organizations early on, although they improved in one CCOP organization. As a result of weak IPPs, all three CCOPs created a weak implementation climate. Patient accrual became concentrated over time among those groups of physicians for whom CBPPR exhibited a strong innovation-values fit. Several external factors influenced innovation use, complicating and enriching our intra-organizational model of innovation implementation.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our results contribute to the limited body of research on the implementation of CBPPR. They inform policy discussions about increasing and sustaining community clinician involvement in clinical research and expand on theory about organizational determinants of implementation effectiveness.</p