NAPCRG CONGRATULATES THE 2014 PATIENT CHOICE AWARD WINNERS

doi:10.1370/afm.1801

At the 2014 Annual Meeting in New York, New York NAPCRG challenged its poster presenters to enter their posters in the Patient Choice Awards, a new initiative geared to engage patients with primary care researchers. Participating researchers were asked to answer, in layman’s terms, the question: “So what?” or how is the research relevant to patients? Researchers had to explain the significant impact the research would have on human health and/or why it should matter to patients, community members, and family physicians.

Patients participating in NAPCRG’s PaCE project, which engages patients and primary care clinicians in the larger context of primary care research, judged the posters and chose 2 winners.

The winners were:

Does Case Management Address the Needs of Patients With Mild Dementia and Their Caregivers in Community-based Primary Health Care? A Mixed Methods Study Design.

Vladimir Khanassov, MD, MSc, Resident in Family Medicine and Isabelle Vedel, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor, McGill University

Knowledge, Practices and Attitudes on Diabetic Foot Care Among Patients With Diabetes at the Family Health Clinic at the University Hospital Robert B. Green Downtown Campus in San Antonio, TX

Anna Cecilia Tenorio, MD; Robert Ferrer, MD; Sandra Burge, PhD, Fozia Ali, MD, Babaran M; Del Rosario A; Estacio M; Herman S; Lopez G; Vasquez A, The University of Texas Science Center at San Antonio

The Patient Choice Awards is one of many initiatives that are a part of the PaCE project, a program funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Through the PaCE project, NAPCRG will develop a robust community of patients and primary care providers with knowledge and understanding of the unique features of patient-centered outcomes research related to primary care.

Too often, community partners in health research consist of health professionals and organizational leaders. PaCE aims to identify partners who are the “non-usual suspects”—people who are not necessarily medical or public health professionals, who are not aligned with a particular professional or personal research policy agenda, and whose local influence is defined within the context of the community versus job titles or credentials.