Assessing the impact of systematic reviews on future research: two case studies.

AIMS: To evaluate the impact of systematic reviews on research funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) through Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs), and to identify barriers to and facilitators for the effects of these documents on future research. METHODS & MATERIALS: Two AHRQ systematic reviews were selected as case studies to evaluate their impact on future research. Key citations generated by these reports were identified through ISI Web of Science and PubMed Central and traced forward to identify effects on subsequent studies through citation analysis from updated systematic reviews on the topics. Requests for applications and program announcements from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts website were reviewed and dissemination data were obtained from AHRQ. Finally, interviews were conducted with 13 key informants to help identify short-, medium- and long-term impacts of the EPC reviews. RESULTS: The measurable impact of the two EPC reviews is demonstrably greater on short-term outcomes (greater awareness of the issues) than on medium-term (e.g., the generation of new knowledge) or long-term outcomes (e.g., changes in patient practice or health outcomes). Factors such as the topic and the timing of the report relative to the development of the field may explain the impact of these two AHRQ reports. The degree to which the new research can be directly attributed to the AHRQ reviews remains unclear. Key informants discussed several benefits stemming from the EPC reports, including providing a foundation for the research community on which to build, heightening awareness of the gaps in knowledge, increasing the quality of research and sparking new directions of research. However, the degree to which these reports were influential hinged on several factors including marketing efforts, the very nature of the reports and other influences external to the EPC domain. CONCLUSIONS: The findings outlined in this article illustrate the importance of numerous factors influencing future research: the breadth, specificity and readiness of the topic for more research, ongoing developments in the field, availability of funding and active engagement of champions. AHRQ and the EPCs may be able to improve the likelihood of impact by creating more targeted products, planning for and expanding dissemination activities, improving the readability and other attributes of the reports themselves, and actively involving funders early on and throughout the process of creating and publishing the reviews.

The role of partnerships in addressing childhood asthma: the experiences of the Merck Childhood Asthma Network, Inc. (MCAN) initiative.

Partnerships have taken on added importance in recent years because of their critical role in addressing complex public health problems and translating evidence-based practices to real-world settings. The Merck Childhood Asthma Network, Inc. initiative recognized the importance of partnerships in achieving the program's goals. In this article, case studies of the five Merck Childhood Asthma Network program sites describe the role of partnerships in the development and evolution of the program and its interventions. Three key factors contributed to the success of the partnerships: having common organizational goals, considering context in the selection and engagement of partners, and ensuring that each partnership benefited from the alliance. Over the 4-year program period, all five partnerships evolved, matured, and had an established goal to maintain collaboration.

Best practices in the Veterans Health Administration's MOVE! Weight management program.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a substantial problem in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). VHA developed and disseminated the MOVE! Weight Management Program for Veterans to its medical facilities but implementation of the program has been variable. PURPOSE: The objective was to explore variation in MOVE! program implementation to identify facility structure, policies, and processes associated with larger patient weight-loss outcomes. METHODS: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) was used to identify facility conditions or combinations of conditions associated with larger 6-month patient weight-loss outcomes. QCA is a method that allows for systematic cross-case comparison to better understand causal complexity. Eleven sites with larger outcomes and 11 sites with smaller outcomes were identified and data were collected with site interviews, facility-completed program summary forms, and medical record abstraction in 2009 and 2010. Conditions were selected based on theory and experience implementing MOVE! and were calibrated using QCA methods. Configuration patterns were examined to identify necessary conditions (i.e., always present when outcome present, but alone do not guarantee outcome) and sufficient conditions (i.e., presence guarantees outcome) at sites with larger and smaller outcomes. A thematic analysis of site interview data supplemented QCA findings. RESULTS: No two sites shared the same condition pattern. Necessary conditions included the use of a standard curriculum and group care-delivery format, and they were present at all sites with larger outcomes but at only six sites with smaller outcomes. At the 17 sites with both necessary conditions, four combinations of conditions were identified that accounted for all sites with larger outcomes. These included high program complexity combined with high staff involvement; group care-delivery format combined with low accountability to facility leadership; an active physician champion combined with low accountability to facility leadership; and the use of quality-improvement strategies combined with not using a waiting list. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a standard curriculum delivered with a group care-delivery format is an essential feature of successful VHA facility MOVE! Weight Management Programs, but alone does not guarantee success. Program development and policy will be used to ensure dissemination of the best practices identified in this evaluation.