Search

In this commentary, we propose that practice-based research networks (PBRNs) engage with funders and policymakers by applying the same engagement strategies they have successfully used to build relationships with community stakeholders. A community engagement approach to achieve new funding streams for PBRNs should include a strategy to engage key stakeholders from the communities of funders, thought leaders, and policymakers using collaborative principles and methods. PBRNs that implement this strategy would build a robust network of engaged partners at the community level, across networks, and would reach state and federal policymakers, academic family medicine departments, funding bodies, and national thought leaders in the redesign of health care delivery., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (© Copyright 2016 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

There is often a rich but untold history of events that occur and relationships that form before a practice-based research network (PBRN) is launched. This is particularly the case in PBRNs that are community based and comprise partnerships outside of the health care system. In this article we summarize an organizational "prenatal history" before the birth of a PBRN devoted to people with developmental disabilities. Using a case study approach, this article describes the historic events that preceded and fostered the evolution of this PBRN and contrasts how the processes leading to the creation of this multistakeholder, community-based PBRN differ from those of typical academic/clinical practice PBRNs. We propose potential advantages and complexities inherent to this newest iteration of PBRNs., (© Copyright 2014 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) have developed a grounded approach to conducting practice-relevant and translational research in community practice settings. Seismic shifts in the health care landscape are shaping PBRNs that work across organizational and institutional margins to address complex problems. Praxis-based research networks combine PBRN knowledge generation with multistakeholder learning, experimentation, and application of practical knowledge. The catalytic processes in praxis-based research networks are cycles of action and reflection based on experience, observation, conceptualization, and experimentation by network members and partners. To facilitate co-learning and solution-building, these networks have a flexible architecture that allows pragmatic inclusion of stakeholders based on the demands of the problem and the needs of the network. Praxis-based research networks represent an evolving trend that combines the core values of PBRNs with new opportunities for relevance, rigor, and broad participation., (© Copyright 2014 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Purpose: The "card study," in which clinicians record brief information about patient visits during usual clinical care, has long been a rapid method for conducting descriptive studies in practice-based research networks. Because an increasingly stringent regulatory environment has made conducting card studies difficult, we developed a streamlined method for obtaining card study institutional review board (IRB) approval., Methods: We developed a protocol for a study of the card study method, allowing new card study proposals of specific research questions to be submitted as addenda to the approved Card Study Protocol., Results: Seven card studies were proposed and approved under the Card Study Protocol during the first year after implementation, contrasted with one-card study proposed in the previous year. New card study ideas submitted as addenda to an approved protocol appeared to increase IRB comfort with the card study as a minimal risk method while reducing the hurdles to developing new study ideas., Conclusions: A Card Study Protocol allowing new study questions to be submitted as addenda decreases time between idea generation and IRB approval. Shortened turn-around times may be useful for translating ideas into action while reducing regulatory burden.

Background: The majority of adult women in the United States fail to meet daily calcium intake recommendations. This study was undertaken to (1) identify predictors of calcium supplement use versus non-use, (2) understand barriers to calcium supplementation, and (3) determine the potential impact of physician recommendation on calcium supplement use., Methods: Surveys were self-administered by 185 women, ages 20 to 64, presenting consecutively for care at 6 suburban community-based family medicine practices within the Cleveland Clinic Ambulatory Research Network (CleAR-eN). We compared demographic characteristics, health beliefs, and health behaviors of those women who reported never using calcium supplements with those who presently took calcium supplements. Women who never took calcium were also queried about reasons for non-use and whether physician recommendation would influence their adoption of calcium supplementation., Results: Multivitamin use, self-perceived risk of osteoporosis, and age were independent predictors of calcium supplement use. Leading barriers for never-users were lack of knowledge about the need/importance of increasing calcium intake, lack of motivation to start supplements, and the belief that their dietary calcium intake alone was sufficient. Ninety-six percent of never-users reported that they would consider taking a calcium supplement if recommended by their physician., Conclusions: Many patient-identified barriers to calcium supplementation seem amenable to focused and brief office-based interventions that could increase the number of women meeting calcium intake guidelines.