4.2 Article

Defining dimensions of research readiness: a conceptual model for primary care research networks

Journal

BMC FAMILY PRACTICE
Volume 15, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12875-014-0169-6

Keywords

General practice; Research; Medical records systems; computerised; Data collection; Patient selection

Funding

  1. Surrey and Sussex Comprehensive Research Network
  2. Primary Care Research Network South East

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Recruitment to research studies in primary care is challenging despite widespread implementation of electronic patient record (EPR) systems which potentially make it easier to identify eligible cases. Methods: Literature review and applying the learning from a European research readiness assessment tool, the TRANSFoRm International Research Readiness instrument (TIRRE), to the context of the English NHS in order to develop a model to assess a practice's research readiness. Results: Seven dimensions of research readiness were identified: (1) Data readiness: Is there good data quality in EPR systems; (2) Record readiness: Are EPR data able to identify eligible cases and other study data; (3) Organisational readiness: Are the health system and socio-cultural environment supportive; (4) Governance readiness: Does the study meet legal and local health system regulatory compliance; (5) Study-specific readiness; (6) Business process readiness: Are business processes tilted in favour of participation: including capacity and capability to take on extra work, financial incentives as well as intangibles such as social and intellectual capital; (7) Patient readiness: Are systems in place to recruit patients and obtain informed consent? Conclusions: The model might enable the development of interventions to increase participation in primary care-based research and become a tool to measure the progress of practice networks towards the most advanced state of readiness.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available