| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 Centre for Study of Policy and Practice in Health and Social Care, Thames Valley University, Westel House, London, England
2 General Practice and Primary Care Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England
3 Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Royal Free and University College School of Medicine, London, England
4 The Nevells Road Surgery, Letchworth Garden City, Herts, and Faculty of Health & Human Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Herts, England
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Paul Thomas, MD, FRCGP, Centre for Study of Policy and Practice in Health and Social Care, Thames Valley University, Westel House, 32–38 Uxbridge Rd, Ealing, London W5 2BS, England, Paul.Thomas{at}tvu.ac.uk
PURPOSE Theory of effective network operation in primary care is underdeveloped. This study aimed to identify how primary care networks can best integrate academic and service initiatives.
METHODS We performed a comparative case study of 4 primary care research networks in North London, England, for the years 1998–2002. Indicators were selected to assess changes in (1) research capacity, (2) multidisciplinary collaboration, and (3) research productivity. We compared the profiles of network outcome with descriptions of their contexts and organizational types from a previous evaluation.
RESULTS Together, the networks supported 133 viable projects and 30 others; 399 practitioners, managers, and academics participated in the research teams. How the networks organized themselves was influenced by the circumstances in which they were formed. Different ways of organizing were associated with different outcome profiles. Shared projects and learning spaces helped participants to develop trusted relationships. A top-down, hierarchical approach based on institutional alliances and academic expertise attracted more funding and appeared to be stable. The bottom-up, individualistic network with research practices was good at reflecting on practical primary care concerns. Whole-system methods brought together stakeholder contributions from all parts of the system.
CONCLUSIONS Networks can help integrate academic research and service development initiatives by facilitating interorganizational interactions and in shared leadership of projects. Researchers and practitioners stand to gain considerably from an integrated approach in both the short and the long term. Success requires agreement about a set of pathways, learning spaces, and feedback mechanisms to harness the insights and efforts of stakeholders throughout the whole system.
Key Words: Primary care • practice-based research • network • leadership • organizations
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  F. Sullivan, C. Butler, M. Cupples, and A.-L. Kinmonth Primary care research networks in the United Kingdom BMJ, May 26, 2007; 334(7603): 1093 - 1094. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. C. Stange In This Issue: New Concepts for Diabetes and Chronic Disease Management Ann. Fam. Med, May 1, 2007; 5(3): 194 - 195. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. C. Stange On TRACK: Medical Research Must Consider Context and Complexity Ann. Fam. Med, July 1, 2006; 4(4): 369 - 370. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. C. Stange and L. S. Acheson In This Issue: Communication in the Era of 'Personalized' Medicine Ann. Fam. Med, May 1, 2006; 4(3): 194 - 196. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
Read all TRACK Comments
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
