Cargando…

Process evaluation in practice based research networks: a study protocol for a mixed-methods implementation study

INTRODUCTION: General practitioners often criticise clinical trials for their poor applicability in primary care, which may at least partially explain why their engagement in primary care research remains limited. In order to enhance primary care research, the German government has funded six region...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sanftenberg, Linda, Dreischulte, Tobias, Härdtlein, Annette, Kosub, Helena, Gagyor, Ildiko, Kurotschka, Peter Konstantin, Kühlein, Thomas, Burggraf, Larissa, Eck, Stefanie, Roos, Marco, Gensichen, Jochen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10347461/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37438058
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065947
_version_ 1785073553225285632
author Sanftenberg, Linda
Dreischulte, Tobias
Härdtlein, Annette
Kosub, Helena
Gagyor, Ildiko
Kurotschka, Peter Konstantin
Kühlein, Thomas
Burggraf, Larissa
Eck, Stefanie
Roos, Marco
Gensichen, Jochen
author_facet Sanftenberg, Linda
Dreischulte, Tobias
Härdtlein, Annette
Kosub, Helena
Gagyor, Ildiko
Kurotschka, Peter Konstantin
Kühlein, Thomas
Burggraf, Larissa
Eck, Stefanie
Roos, Marco
Gensichen, Jochen
author_sort Sanftenberg, Linda
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: General practitioners often criticise clinical trials for their poor applicability in primary care, which may at least partially explain why their engagement in primary care research remains limited. In order to enhance primary care research, the German government has funded six regional practice based research networks (PBRNs). Within the Bavarian PBRN (BayFoNet), two cluster-randomised pilot trials will be conducted. This paper presents the protocol of the process evaluation accompanying both trials, which aims to explore relevance, feasibility, acceptability and credibility of clinical research in primary care from the perspectives of BayFoNet researchers, general practitioners, and patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The BayFoNet will be established by recruiting general practices (GPs) as prospective research collaborators in two cluster randomised pilot trials. Research teams will provide training in good clinical practice, and support practices in patient recruitment, data collection and documentation. Our process evaluation explores barriers and facilitators in the set up of the BayFoNet PBRN and both cluster randomised pilot trials, under the application of the consolidated framework for implementation research and the theoretical domains framework. In a mixed-methods concept, we will use qualitative and quantitative approaches to evaluate both pilot cluster-randomised trials as well as the BayFoNet itself: focus groups with researchers, semi-structured interviews with general practitioners and questionnaires for patients participating in the pilot cluster-randomised trials at three different time points. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethical approval for this study was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Department, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich (AZ 21-1135). Results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals and summaries will be provided to the funders of the study as well as other PBRNs, GP teams and patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: DRKS00028805, NCT05667207.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10347461
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103474612023-07-15 Process evaluation in practice based research networks: a study protocol for a mixed-methods implementation study Sanftenberg, Linda Dreischulte, Tobias Härdtlein, Annette Kosub, Helena Gagyor, Ildiko Kurotschka, Peter Konstantin Kühlein, Thomas Burggraf, Larissa Eck, Stefanie Roos, Marco Gensichen, Jochen BMJ Open General practice / Family practice INTRODUCTION: General practitioners often criticise clinical trials for their poor applicability in primary care, which may at least partially explain why their engagement in primary care research remains limited. In order to enhance primary care research, the German government has funded six regional practice based research networks (PBRNs). Within the Bavarian PBRN (BayFoNet), two cluster-randomised pilot trials will be conducted. This paper presents the protocol of the process evaluation accompanying both trials, which aims to explore relevance, feasibility, acceptability and credibility of clinical research in primary care from the perspectives of BayFoNet researchers, general practitioners, and patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The BayFoNet will be established by recruiting general practices (GPs) as prospective research collaborators in two cluster randomised pilot trials. Research teams will provide training in good clinical practice, and support practices in patient recruitment, data collection and documentation. Our process evaluation explores barriers and facilitators in the set up of the BayFoNet PBRN and both cluster randomised pilot trials, under the application of the consolidated framework for implementation research and the theoretical domains framework. In a mixed-methods concept, we will use qualitative and quantitative approaches to evaluate both pilot cluster-randomised trials as well as the BayFoNet itself: focus groups with researchers, semi-structured interviews with general practitioners and questionnaires for patients participating in the pilot cluster-randomised trials at three different time points. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethical approval for this study was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Department, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich (AZ 21-1135). Results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals and summaries will be provided to the funders of the study as well as other PBRNs, GP teams and patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: DRKS00028805, NCT05667207. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-07-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10347461/ /pubmed/37438058 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065947 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle General practice / Family practice
Sanftenberg, Linda
Dreischulte, Tobias
Härdtlein, Annette
Kosub, Helena
Gagyor, Ildiko
Kurotschka, Peter Konstantin
Kühlein, Thomas
Burggraf, Larissa
Eck, Stefanie
Roos, Marco
Gensichen, Jochen
Process evaluation in practice based research networks: a study protocol for a mixed-methods implementation study
title Process evaluation in practice based research networks: a study protocol for a mixed-methods implementation study
title_full Process evaluation in practice based research networks: a study protocol for a mixed-methods implementation study
title_fullStr Process evaluation in practice based research networks: a study protocol for a mixed-methods implementation study
title_full_unstemmed Process evaluation in practice based research networks: a study protocol for a mixed-methods implementation study
title_short Process evaluation in practice based research networks: a study protocol for a mixed-methods implementation study
title_sort process evaluation in practice based research networks: a study protocol for a mixed-methods implementation study
topic General practice / Family practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10347461/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37438058
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065947
work_keys_str_mv AT sanftenberglinda processevaluationinpracticebasedresearchnetworksastudyprotocolforamixedmethodsimplementationstudy
AT dreischultetobias processevaluationinpracticebasedresearchnetworksastudyprotocolforamixedmethodsimplementationstudy
AT hardtleinannette processevaluationinpracticebasedresearchnetworksastudyprotocolforamixedmethodsimplementationstudy
AT kosubhelena processevaluationinpracticebasedresearchnetworksastudyprotocolforamixedmethodsimplementationstudy
AT gagyorildiko processevaluationinpracticebasedresearchnetworksastudyprotocolforamixedmethodsimplementationstudy
AT kurotschkapeterkonstantin processevaluationinpracticebasedresearchnetworksastudyprotocolforamixedmethodsimplementationstudy
AT kuhleinthomas processevaluationinpracticebasedresearchnetworksastudyprotocolforamixedmethodsimplementationstudy
AT burggraflarissa processevaluationinpracticebasedresearchnetworksastudyprotocolforamixedmethodsimplementationstudy
AT eckstefanie processevaluationinpracticebasedresearchnetworksastudyprotocolforamixedmethodsimplementationstudy
AT roosmarco processevaluationinpracticebasedresearchnetworksastudyprotocolforamixedmethodsimplementationstudy
AT gensichenjochen processevaluationinpracticebasedresearchnetworksastudyprotocolforamixedmethodsimplementationstudy
AT processevaluationinpracticebasedresearchnetworksastudyprotocolforamixedmethodsimplementationstudy