Developing a workforce of systematic reviewers out of primary researchers: a mechanism to increase the value and reduce the waste

Session: 

Oral session: Understanding and using evidence (1)

Date: 

Monday 17 September 2018 - 12:10 to 12:20

Location: 

Carrick 3

All authors in correct order:

Guise J1
1 Cochrane US West, Cochrane Fertility Regulation, USA, USA
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Jeanne-Marie Guise

Contact person:

Jeanne-Marie Guise
Abstract text
Background:
In 2009, Cochrane leaders Chalmers and Glasziou emphasized the importance of developing research questions of relevance to clinicians and patients and recommended the utilization of systematic reviews to target research to important information gaps and improve research design. In 2010 we launched a patient-centered outcomes research training program (PCOR K12) with this in mind.

Objectives:
The Oregon PCOR K12 program aims to train a workforce of researchers who are fluent in the conduct of evidence reviews and who utilize reviews to identify information gaps and improve the design and relevance of the research.

Methods:
Faculty are competitively selected for the two- to three-year program. Candidates agree to dedicate at least 75% of their time to research during the award. The program includes mentored research; peer–to-peer grant and publication reviews; and pertinent coursework. In addition to mentored research and training, our program uniquely requires:
1) all faculty appointed to program conduct a systematic review related to their area of research, and
2) that they engage patients and stakeholders in the design and conduct of their research.

Results:
The PCOR K12 program has been highly successful in training productive independent, interdisciplinary researchers in PCOR. Since this program began it has trained nine graduates from eight different academic departments, schools and institutes who have received over USD 9 million in research funding and published over 190 articles. Their research focuses on patient populations such as veterans with traumatic brain injury, rural cancer patients, children, the elderly, and pregnant women with disabilities. Most have successfully published their systematic reviews and almost half (four of the nine) continue to author systematic reviews after their appointments.

Conclusions:
These programs make important contributions to the USA federal research agenda. They increase the capacity for patient-centered research and scholarly reviews, contributing to the reduction of waste in the system.

Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
We require trainees to engage patients, consumers and other stakeholders in the design and conduct of their research. A wide range of patient populations has been engaged including children and families, rural populations, people with disabilities, people with cancer, and veterans with traumatic brain injury. In all cases, trainees have been able to engage in meaningful ways. Trainees comment that patient and stakeholder engagement was beneficial, increases the relevance of their research and has been particularly helpful in recruitment and dissemination.

Relevance to patients and consumers: 

Patients, consumers and other stakeholders are involved in the design and conduct of our scholars' research. Scholars have engaged a wide range of stakeholders including children and families, rural populations, people with disabilities, patients with cancer, and veteran’s with traumatic brain injury. Trainees comment that patient and stakeholder engagement increases the relevance of their research and has been particularly helpful in recruitment and dissemination. Narratives from patients similarly spoke to the value of being engaged.