Article

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN) Relationship: Delivering on an Opportunity, Challenges, and Future Directions

American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network, University of Colorado Denver Department of Family Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (Impact Factor: 1.85). 09/2011; 24(5):489-92. DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2011.05.110080
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) often lack sufficient funding to develop the underlying infrastructure necessary to conduct high-quality, pragmatic, policy-relevant studies. One mechanism introduced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) that held the potential to address this issue was the PBRN Master Contract Program. The program allows the AHRQ to fund tightly focused "research activities" and to create a partnership through the PBRN contracts. Although PBRNs expected Master Contracts to strengthen them, several issues limit the utility of these contracts. The funding levels are lower than that provided from other sources for comparable work. Although some Task Order Officers are diligent, responsive, and supportive, too frequently their zeal for specific results and heavy handed approaches have led to significant "scope creep" and unrealistic expectations. Finally, a mechanism to allow PBRNs and network clinicians to influence the direction of the research questions has not been well developed. We see value in a new approach that supports the ability of the AHRQ to (1) garner support from other government agencies to engage PBRNs in studies relevant to policymakers and PBRNs; (2) capitalize on the collaborative nature of PBRNs by developing projects that support collaboration; (3) provide modest funding for infrastructure; (4) avoid the unnecessary and costly regulatory oversight from OMB; and (5) develop sustained "lines of research" on a scale, currently unavailable through the Master Contract, that can meaningfully contribute to the shaping of health policy.

0 Followers
 · 
79 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We have quite a rich issue this month related to practice-based research networks (PBRNs)--reflections on where they have been, where they should go, how they should happen; lessons learned about recruiting physicians and patients and new research methods; and several clinical studies from existing PBRNs. We had an amazing number of manuscripts submitted this year for the PBRN issue; as a result, this is a powerful issue. Some are under revision for future issues of the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, just as we have some articles from PBRNs appearing in most issues. PBRNs have deepened the family medicine research tradition. The importance of primary care research to build the evidence base of our clinical practice, plus the useful work building the methods of primary care research, distinguishes the pioneers in PBRNs. PBRNs are Health Improvement Networks and national treasures to be nurtured.
    The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 09/2011; 24(5):481-2. DOI:10.3122/jabfm.2011.05.110213 · 1.85 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Comparative effectiveness research fundamentally reorients how clinical evidence is generated and used with the goal of providing actionable information to decision-makers. To achieve this, it is vital that decision-makers and the research enterprise are engaged from research inception, to evidence generation and translation. Practice-based research networks are affiliated clinicians in diverse communities with the goal of conducting research to improve care. Practice-based research networks have the potential to advance all phases of the comparative effectiveness research cycle. The aim of this paper is to explore current and potential roles of practice-based research networks in conducting comparative effectiveness research.
    01/2012; 1(1):45-55. DOI:10.2217/cer.11.7
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) have emerged as laboratories in which to address important primary care challenges. In 2011, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's PBRN database included more than 130 networks, most regional and some national, with member practices in every state. Regional networks may have certain advantages over national networks with respect to practice recruitment and project quality control because of closer relationships and shorter distances. However, national networks often can achieve larger numbers of practices with greater diversity, resulting in broader generalizability of results. Increasingly, regional networks are collaborating on multinetwork projects, but this creates significant study coordination challenges. A potential solution is to incorporate PBRN coordinating centers similar to those used in many National Institutes of Health and industry-sponsored multi-center clinical trials. In this article, we discuss the potential functions of a coordinating center in multi-region PBRN studies based on our experience with 2 recent studies.
    The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 09/2012; 25(5):577-81. DOI:10.3122/jabfm.2012.05.110302 · 1.85 Impact Factor