New Zealand needs a Practice Based Research Network
Sharon LeitchSenior Research Fellow, Department of General Practice and Rural Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand. Email: sharon.leitch@otago.ac.nz
Journal of Primary Health Care 8(1) 9-12 https://doi.org/10.1071/HC15045
Published: 31 March 2016
Journal Compilation © Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners 2016.
This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Abstract
Practice Based Research Networks (PBRNs) are groups of general practices collaborating to produce research. Contemporary New Zealand health information technology systems are ideal for electronic data extraction for PBRN research. Stakeholders have a valuable, but typically underutilised, part to play in research. Development of an e-participation platform will facilitate stakeholder engagement. New Zealand is in a unique position to create an innovative, low cost, stakeholder-engaged PBRN. This type of PBRN would offer unparalleled research opportunities, and would strengthen New Zealand’s general practice research capacity. The more research information we have based on our New Zealand population, the more appropriate care we can provide. Establishing a stakeholder-engaged PBRN in New Zealand will promote and support transformational change within our health system.
In June 2015 I had the privilege of attending the annual Practice Based Research Network (PBRN) Conference held in Bethesda, near Washington D.C. The conference is hosted by the North American Primary Care Research Group and the United States (US) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. In this article I draw on the knowledge I gained at that conference and discuss its translation to New Zealand.
References
[1] Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Practice-Based Research Networks [Accessed 21 September 2015]. Available from: https://pbrn.ahrq.gov/.[2] de Lusignan S, van Weel C. The use of routinely collected computer data for research in primary care: opportunities and challenges. Fam Pract 2006; 23 253–63.
| The use of routinely collected computer data for research in primary care: opportunities and challenges.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16368704PubMed |
[3] Kljakovic M, Seddon T, Reinken J, McLeod D. The rise and fall of a general practice information network. N Z Fam Physician 1992; 73–6.
[4] Dovey SM, Tilyard M. The computer research network of the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners: an approach to general practice research in New Zealand. Br J Gen Pract 1996; 46 749–52.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK2s7kvFSmsw%3D%3D&md5=be3c921281e4b2fd50720e2ec5ce4e11CAS | 8995859PubMed |
[5] Hsiao C-J, Hing E, Ashman J. Trends in electronic health record system use among office-based physicians, United States, 2007–2012: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics; 2014.
[6] Ministry of Health. Health Act 1956. 65: Ministry of Health; 1956.
[7] Stevens R. Medical Record Databases. Just What you Need?: Office of the Privacy Commissioner; 1998 [Accessed 27 September 2015]. Available from: https://www.privacy.org.nz/news-and-publications/speeches-and-presentations/medical-record-databases-just-what-you-need/
[8] Didham R, Martin I, Wood R, Harrison K. Information technology systems in general practice medicine in New Zealand. N Z Med J 2004; 117 U977
| 15326500PubMed |
[9] Ovhed I, Royen PV, Håkansson A. What is the future of primary care research? Probably fairly bright, if we may believe the historical development. Scand J Prim Health Care 2005; 23 248–53.
| What is the future of primary care research? Probably fairly bright, if we may believe the historical development.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16272075PubMed |
[10] Herbison P, Hay-Smith J, Paterson H, et al. Research priorities in urinary incontinence: results from citizens’ juries. BJOG 2009; 116 713–8.
| Research priorities in urinary incontinence: results from citizens’ juries.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1M3itV2mtg%3D%3D&md5=7035dc2a456a2ea14450172e32d4d447CAS | 19298439PubMed |
[11] Entwistle VA, Renfrew MJ, Yearley S, et al. Lay perspectives: advantages for health research. BMJ 1998; 316 463–6.
| Lay perspectives: advantages for health research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1c7ltlGlsg%3D%3D&md5=3e089086f5f96cb0deeb2084248fd729CAS | 9492683PubMed |
[12] Ministry of Health. National Health IT Plan Update 2013/14. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2013.
[13] Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2014; 14 89
| Patient engagement in research: a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24568690PubMed |
[14] Lavallee DC, Wicks P, Alfonso Cristancho R, Mullins CD. Stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research: high-touch or high-tech? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2014; 14 335–44.
| Stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research: high-touch or high-tech?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24661181PubMed |
[15] Shprecher D, Noyes K, Biglan K,, et al. Willingness of Parkinson’s disease patients to participate in research using internet-based technology. Telemed e-Health 2012; 18 684–7.
