| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind
2 Regenstrief Institute, Inc, Indianapolis, Ind
3 National Opinion Research Center, Washington, DC
4 Department of Family Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill
5 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Gaithersburg, Md
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: William M. Tierney, MD, Room M200-OPW, 1001 West Tenth Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202, wtierney{at}iupui.edu
PURPOSE Increasing numbers of primary care practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are being developed in the United States to perform research relevant to everyday practice. To assess the current status and potential value of this resource, we surveyed US primary care PBRNs in operation from late 2003 to early 2004.
METHODS We performed a Web-based survey and structured interviews with PBRN directors and administrative officers, assessing PBRNs’ history, size, location, organization, resources, operations, and productivity (funding obtained, studies performed, and articles published).
RESULTS Of 111 primary care PBRNs identified, 89 (80%) responded to the survey. The 86 (77%) meeting the criteria for primary care PBRNs contained 1,871 practices, 12,957 physicians (mean 152 per PBRN, median 100), and 14.7 million patients (mean 229,880 per PBRN, median 105,000). Minority and underinsured patients were overrepresented. The average PBRN was young (4.4 ± 5.7 years): one-half had performed 3 or fewer studies. Three-quarters were affiliated with universities. Common research foci included prevention, diabetes, cardiovascular risk factors, and mental health. Respondent PBRNs had published more than 600 articles in peer-reviewed journals. PBRNs studying questions posed by outside researchers had more federal funding (84% vs 27%, P=.006). PBRNs citing funding as a weakness relied more on local resources to fund research projects (70% vs 40%, P=.036).
CONCLUSIONS American primary care PBRNs are mainly young, diverse, and pursuing a variety of research foci. Most have university links and provide a dynamic town-gown relationship that could be a vital national resource for improving primary care, translating research into practice, and meeting the National Institutes of Health Roadmap goals. PBRNs merit further attention from both private and public funding agencies and researchers interested in studying the delivery of primary care.
Key Words: Research networks • primary care • survey research • practice-based research
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J.-K. Soler, I. Okkes, M. Wood, and H. Lamberts The coming of age of ICPC: celebrating the 21st birthday of the International Classification of Primary Care Fam. Pract., August 1, 2008; 25(4): 312 - 317. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Hummers-Pradier, C. Scheidt-Nave, H. Martin, S. Heinemann, M. M Kochen, and W. Himmel Simply no time? Barriers to GPs' participation in primary health care research Fam. Pract., April 15, 2008; (2008) cmn015v1. [Abstract] [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annals Journal Club: Acanthosis Nigricans and Diabetes Risk Factors Ann. Fam. Med, May 1, 2007; 5(3): iii - iii. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
Read all TRACK Comments
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
