Process for Setting Research Priorities: A Case Study from the State Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners (SNOCAP) Consortium

References

1. 1.↵
   1. White KL,
   2. Williams TF,
   3. Greenberg BG

   . The ecology of medical care. N Engl J Med 1961;265:885–92.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Hickner J,
   2. Green LA

   . Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in the United States: growing and still going after all these years. J Am Board Fam Med 2015;28:541–5.

   OpenUrlFREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Westfall JM,
   2. Mold J,
   3. Fagnan L

   . Practice-based research–“Blue Highways” on the NIH roadmap. JAMA 2007;297:403–6.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   1. Dolor RJ,
   2. Campbell-Voytal K,
   3. Daly J,
   4. et al

   . Practice-based research network research good practices (PRGPs): summary of recommendations. Clin Transl Sci 2015;8:638–46.

   OpenUrlPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Mold JW,
   2. Peterson KA

   . Primary care practice-based research networks: working at the interface between research and quality improvement. Ann Fam Med 2005;3:12–20.

   OpenUrl
6. 6.↵
   1. Mold JW,
   2. Gregory ME

   . Best practices research. Fam Med 2003;35:131–4.

   OpenUrlPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Hoffmann AE,
   2. Leege EK,
   3. Plane MB,
   4. et al

   . Clinician and staff perspectives on participating in practice-based research (PBR): a report from the Wisconsin Research and Education Network (WREN). J Am Board Fam Med 2015;28:639–48.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   1. Manafo E,
   2. Petermann L,
   3. Vandall-Walker V,
   4. Mason-Lai P

   . Patient and public engagement in priority setting: a systematic rapid review of the literature. PLoS One 2018;13:e0193579.

   OpenUrl
9. 9.↵
   1. Balazs CL,
   2. Morello-Frosch R

   . The three R's: how community based participatory research strengthens the rigor, relevance and reach of science. Environ Justice. 2013;6.
10. 10.↵
    1. Milton B,
    2. Attree P,
    3. French B,
    4. Povall S,
    5. Whitehead M,
    6. Popay J

    . The impact of community engagement on health and social outcomes: a systematic review. Community Dev J 2012;47:316–34.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Kilpatrick S

    . Multi-level rural community engagement in health. Aust J Rural Health 2009;17:39–44.

    OpenUrlPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Michener JL,
    2. Yaggy S,
    3. Lyn M,
    4. et al

    . Improving the health of the community: Duke's experience with community engagement. Acad Med 2008;83:408–13.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    Community Catalyst. What is grassroots organizing. Available from: https://www.communitycatalyst.org/resources/tools/copy-of-grassroots/what-is-grassroots-organizing. Accessed May 30, 2019.
14. 14.↵
    1. Westfall JM,
    2. VanVorst RF,
    3. Main DS,
    4. Herbert C

    . Community-based participatory research in practice-based research networks. Ann Fam Med 2006;4:8–14.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Westfall JM,
    2. Ingram B,
    3. Navarro D,
    4. et al

    . Engaging communities in education and research: PBRNs, AHEC, and CTSA. Clin Transl Sci 2012;5:250–8.

    OpenUrlPubMed
16. 16.↵
    The World Café Community Foundation. A quick reference guide for hosting World Café. Available from: http://www.theworldcafe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Cafe-To-Go-Revised.pdf. Published 2015. Accessed January 23, 2019.
17. 17.↵
    1. Lipmanowic ZH,
    2. McCandless K

    . The surprising power of liberating structure: Simple rules to unleash a culture of innovation. Seattle: Liberating structures press; 2013.
18. 18.↵
    1. Lipmanowic ZH,
    2. McCandless K

    . What, so what, now what? W³. Liberating Structures Available from: http://www.liberatingstructures.com/9-what-so-what-now-what-w/. Accessed January 23, 1990.
19. 19.↵
    1. Westfall JM,
    2. Zittleman L,
    3. Staton EW,
    4. et al

    . Card studies for observational research in practice. Ann Fam Med 2011;9:63–8.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    1. Cowan K

    NETSCC, Cowan K. The James Lind Alliance guidebook. Version 8. Available from: http://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/jla-guidebook/downloads/Version-8-JLA-Guidebook-for-download-from-website.pdf. Published 2018. Accessed January 23, 2019.
21. 21.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Gaining Consensus Among Stakeholders Through the Nominal Group Technique. Evaluation Briefs No. 7. 2006. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2018. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/pdf/brief7.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2019.
22. 22.↵
    1. Tai-Seale M,
    2. McGuire TG,
    3. Zhang W

    . Time allocation in primary care office visits. Health Serv Res 2007;42:1871–94.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    1. Campbell-Voytal K,
    2. Daly JM,
    3. Nagykaldi ZJ,
    4. et al

    . Team science approach to developing consensus on research good practices for practice-based research networks: a case study. Clin Transl Sci 2015;8:632–7.

    OpenUrlPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Cho YI,
    2. Johnson TP,
    3. Vangeest JB

    . Enhancing surveys of health care professionals: a meta-analysis of techniques to improve response. Eval Health Prof 2013;36:382–407.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    1. Madden M,
    2. Morley R

    . Exploring the challenge of health research priority setting in partnership: reflections on the methodology used by the James Lind Alliance Pressure Ulcer Priority Setting Partnership. Res Involv Engagem 2016;2:12.

    OpenUrl