Assessing and Improving Processes and Outcomes of the McGill Primary Health Care Research Network (summer bursary)

• Main Authors: Zhida Shang, Justin Gagnon, Vera Granikov, Rosario Rodriguez, Pierre Pluye
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: McGill University 2020-08-01
• Series: McGill Journal of Medicine
• Subjects: Organizational Participatory Research; Action Research; Practice based Research Network
• Online Access: https://mjm.mcgill.ca/article/view/65

Background: The McGill Primary Health Care Research Network (the Network) is a Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN) that promotes the collaboration between researchers and clinicians in research. The Network follows an approach called Organizational Participatory Research (OPR). Purpose: To discover the processes and outcomes associated with the Network, to learn about researcher and clinician collaboration within the Network and to propose recommendations and a revised questionnaire. Methods: A thematic qualitative data analysis was conducted. The data that was analyzed consisted of the diaries of two diaries of two Network coordinators, email correspondence between the core group members and the coordinators, and the minutes of 12 core group meetings. The data were interpreted according to the Capacity Building Framework. Then, codes were organized according to 10 framework-based meta-themes (5 domain-related processes, and 5 domain-related outcomes) and grouped in 24 key-themes (key processes and outcomes). Results: A leadership process was researchers promoting communication within the Network which resulted in clinicians becoming project leaders. An organizational development outcome was members' research projects being completed. Partnership processes involved researchers and clinicians identifying their respective challenges to partnerships. The main outcome was collaboration. Resource allocation processes included time and funding management, with accommodation to time constraints as an outcome. Workforce development processes included researchers educating clinicians, which resulted in networking core group members and positive learning experiences.   Conclusions: The results suggested practice and policy recommendations. Based on the results, an improved mailing policy, a wiki/blog, a more humble approach for researchers and a questionnaire were proposed.