Patrick Nerz

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.

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.