Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Ahead of Print
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Subject Collections
    • Editors' Blog
    • Email Alerts
  • Info For
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • About
    • The JABFM
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
  • Classifieds
  • More
    • Email Alerts
    • Feedback
    • ABFM News
    • Folders
    • Help
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Ahead of Print
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Subject Collections
    • Editors' Blog
    • Email Alerts
  • Info For
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • About
    • The JABFM
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
  • Classifieds
  • More
    • Email Alerts
    • Feedback
    • ABFM News
    • Folders
    • Help
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
  • JABFM On Facebook
Brief ReportPolicy Brief

Practice-Based Innovations: More Relevant and Transportable Than NIH-funded Studies

Rebecca S. Etz, Karissa A. Hahn, Martha M. Gonzalez, Benjamin F. Crabtree and Kurt C. Stange
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine November 2014, 27 (6) 738-739; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2014.06.140053
Rebecca S. Etz
the Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond (RSE, MG); the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers University Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ (KAH, BFC); and the Departments of Family and Community Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (KCS).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karissa A. Hahn
the Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond (RSE, MG); the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers University Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ (KAH, BFC); and the Departments of Family and Community Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (KCS).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martha M. Gonzalez
the Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond (RSE, MG); the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers University Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ (KAH, BFC); and the Departments of Family and Community Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (KCS).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Benjamin F. Crabtree
the Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond (RSE, MG); the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers University Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ (KAH, BFC); and the Departments of Family and Community Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (KCS).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kurt C. Stange
the Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond (RSE, MG); the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers University Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ (KAH, BFC); and the Departments of Family and Community Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (KCS).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

Abstract

In 2003, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) created a translational science funding stream to foster widespread, practice-based dissemination of scientific evidence. A decade later, our study of a national cohort of innovative practices suggests that effective dissemination continues to be prevented by the limited biomedical focus of funded research, conventional research strategies, and failure to report contextual factors.

  • Health Policy
  • Practice-based Research
  • Primary Health Care
  • Program Sustainability
  • Translational Medical Science

We previously published an assessment of US primary care workforce innovations that involved a review of more than 4400 abstracts and more than 350 articles published since 2000.1 Based on the combined experience of the research team, we determined that the literature did not capture the observable landscape of primary care innovation. We therefore followed the first study with a purposeful sampling of investigators based on the literature and snowball sampling to follow up leads. In the second study, we identified and interviewed 250 primary care leaders associated with 190 practice settings at the cutting edge of workforce innovation with the intention of identifying exemplars for further investigation.2

The majority of published accounts of primary care workforce innovation focus on specific diseases or disease clusters and a fidelity to research design, resulting in incremental innovations that are not sustainable. In addition, National Institutes of Health–funded studies seem to favor biomedical data, thus missing many of the contextual factors critical to localized success. In contrast, the innovative practices of our study developed solutions to everyday problems, informed by awareness of local context and funding constraints. Such solutions, built on practice-based evidence,3 enjoy greater sustainability, improved attention to context-specific preconditions, fluid adaptations to workflow, and greater potential for translation (Table 1). Many practices report visiting peer sites as part of their problem-solving approach, noting that understanding context is critical to disseminating productive models.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1. Contrast of Innovations Informed by National Institutes of Health (NIH)–Funded Studies and Practice Innovators

Context-based innovations that are primarily grounded in the everyday competing demands of high-quality primary care settings are more likely to create sustainable solutions to real-world problems. Such practice-based solutions learn from cycles of failure and adaptation and ultimately foster effective change at a faster pace than solutions currently found in the published literature. To meet the innovation needs of primary care, and the health needs of the US population, funders and funding mechanisms must equally embrace fidelity, flexibility, contextual relevance, and grounding in the reality of everyday primary care practice as necessary elements for successful translational funding requests. The National Institutes of Health should also support the creation and adoption of new metrics and methods appropriate for testing and evaluating practice innovation to capture contextual learning.

Notes

  • This article was externally peer reviewed.

  • Funding: This study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (grant no. 68461).

  • Conflict of interest: none declared.

  • See Related Commentary on Page 736.

  • Received for publication February 4, 2014.
  • Revision received April 16, 2014.
  • Accepted for publication April 21, 2014.

References

  1. 1.
    1. Friedman A,
    2. Hahn KA,
    3. Etz R,
    4. et al
    . A typology of primary care workforce innovations in the United States since 2000. Med Care 2014;52:101–11.
  2. 2.
    1. Ladden MD,
    2. Bodenheimer T,
    3. Fishman NW,
    4. et al
    . The emerging primary care workforce: preliminary observations from the primary care team: learning from effective ambulatory practices project. Acad Med 2013;88:1830–4.
  3. 3.
    1. Green LW
    . From research to “best practices” in other settings and populations. Am J Health Behav 2001;25:165–78.

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us

© 2022 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire