BACKGROUND: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) improve primary care by addressing issues that matter to clinicians. Building trust between researchers and care teams is essential to this process, which often requires visiting practices to cultivate relationships and perform research activities. However, in a recent study using practice facilitation to improve the delivery of a preventive service, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted us to convert all planned facilitation from an in-person to virtual format. This eliminated the need to commute by automobile to and from practices across the state, greatly reducing the carbon footprint of the study.
METHODS: From practice facilitator field notes that detailed practice locations and number of sessions, we calculated the total number of driving miles averted by virtual facilitation. We then determined metric tons of carbon dioxide we avoided producing using the Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator. During post-intervention interviews, we assessed practices\' perspectives and experiences with the virtual format.
RESULTS: Three practice facilitators provided an average of 3.4 sessions for 64 practices. Virtual facilitation averted 32,574.8 drive miles and prevented the release of 12.7 metric tons of carbon dioxide, an offset equivalent to growing 210 trees for 10 years. Practices reported that virtual facilitation fostered greater engagement and allowed more clinicians and staff to attend sessions.
CONCLUSIONS: Climate change poses a significant threat to the health of people and communities. Given their commitment to improving population health, it may be time for PBRNs to routinely assess their environmental impact and minimize preventable environmental costs.

Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) have been recognized as essential laboratories and mechanisms for developing primary care research. This scoping review aims to examine and map the features and development trends of productivity, research categories, and methods in original primary care research conducted by global PBRNs between 1991 and 2023.
We have assembled an interdisciplinary team that will undertake this scoping review, following the framework developed by Arksey and O\'Malley. Targeted literature includes original primary care research conducted by PBRNs, published from January 1, 1991, to December 31, 2023. An integrated search strategy will gather publications from 3 electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase), 16 major primary health care journals, and 364 relevant organizations. Two experienced researchers will independently screen the titles, keywords, and abstracts of all references and extract data regarding eight key elements. Disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved through group discussions, moderated by a third reviewer. Articles to be included will (1) be conducted in the primary care context, (2) be led by PBRNs, (3) provide a full report of original research, and (4) be published in a peer-reviewed journal between the aforementioned dates in any language. Exclusions encompass reviews, letters, commentaries, case reports, and conference papers. Final data will be displayed using tables and charts according to different conceptual categories.
This scoping review is one of the initial attempts to delineate the development trends and features of primary care research conducted by PBRNs. This study will provide reference information for researchers in countries/regions that are building their research infrastructure and capacity in general practice, family medicine, and primary care.
Registered in OSF on July 25, 2022 ( https://osf.io/zgv9c ).

Our aims are to describe the characteristics of dentists, members of the US National Dental practice-based research network (PBRN) in the United States, and determine how often these dentists provide specific dental procedures.
Dentists completed a questionnaire when they enrolled in the Network about their demographic and training characteristics and characteristics of their practices and patients. Dentists also reported the frequency of providing specific dental procedures. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Of 4,483 dentists in active clinical practice, 34% identified as females, 70% as white, and 73% as general dentists. Most dentists practiced in large metropolitan areas (87%) and in solo or small practices (72%). On average, they reported about one-half of their patients were children or older adults, a third were from historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, and one-quarter were covered by public insurance. Most dentists routinely performed restorations and fixed prosthetics (78%), extractions (59%), removable (44%) and implant (40%) prosthetics, and endodontics on incisor and premolar teeth (44%).
Dentists participating in the National Dental PBRN have much in common with dentists at large. The network has a broad representation of dentists, practice types, patient populations, and treatments offered, including diversity regarding race/ethnicity, gender, insurance, and geography of its practitioners and patients.
Characteristics of National Dental PBRN dentists suggest that a broad range of dentists is interested in participating in national-level research studies, thereby enabling an array of clinical study settings and topics that can optimize the generalizability of study findings.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) has gained importance in Germany and is also increasingly implemented in research in family medicine. Internationally, diverse frameworks give recommendations on how to successfully design and implement PPI in specific contexts. However, it is crucial to share experiences on PPI in specific settings such as family medicine in order to learn from each other. Thus, this article provides an overview of PPI concepts in the practice-based research networks (PBRNs) of the Initiative of German Practice-Based Research Networks - DESAM-ForNet. In the PBRNs patients and the public are involved in the research process by repeated group meetings in \"public forums\" (BayFoNet), \"round tables\" (FoPraNet-BW) or \"patient advisory boards\" (HAFO.NRW, RESPoNsE, SaxoForN) with a special focus on the planning and dissemination phase of projects. The most successful recruitment strategies so far have encompassed individual patient contacts of family physicians, postings/posters, local self-help organizations and standardized patient programs. Evaluation of PPI is currently being designed in most PBRNS. Overall, the PBRN-specific PPI concepts represent diverse possibilities to create long-term collaborative partnerships with patients and the public. These exemplary concepts are meant to encourage the further development and implementation of adapted PPI-concepts in family medicine research.

This paper reports on the implementation and evaluation of a strategy to promote collaborations and team science among investigators at the Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI). The strategy presented in this paper was a hands-on workshop that allowed the application of strategic team science through structured dialogue, asset sharing, and systematic exploration of opportunities for collaboration.
The workshop was attended by more than 100 participants, including RCMI and non-RCMI investigators, practice-based research network (PBRN) supplement program directors, and an NIH Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Program Officer.
A post-workshop survey was administered to collect participant feedback, assess the relevance of the workshop to the participants\' professional development goals, and gauge the applicability of the tool as a support strategy to promote collaborative research. Most of the participants acknowledged that the session met the conference objectives (95.8%), and 93.7% noted that the workshop, to a high degree, met their personal goals and objectives. During the workshop, participants shared 35 resources they were willing and able to offer for prospective collaborative projects.
The experience reported and evaluated in this paper paves the way to understanding methods for disseminating effective strategies for inter-institutional collaborations for the sustainable growth and operation of PBRNs.

UNASSIGNED: Following inception in 2005 as a multiregional practice-based research network (PBRN), the \"National Dental PBRN\" expanded nationwide in 2012, and in 2019 implemented additional organizational changes. The objectives are to: (1) describe the new structure and function of the network; and (2) quantify its scientific productivity since 2005.
UNASSIGNED: A national Administrative and Resource Center is based in Alabama; regional and specialty nodes are based in Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, New York, and Texas. A Network Coordinating Center is based in Oregon. Studies are funded via investigator-initiated grants. Scientific productivity is assessed using specific metrics, including the Relative Citation Ratio.
UNASSIGNED: To date, 58 studies have been completed or are in data collection or development. These studies have investigated a broad range of topics using a wide variety of study designs. Of the studies that have completed enrollment, 70,665 patients were enrolled, as were 19,827 practitioners (some participated in multiple studies), plus electronic records for 790,493 patients in two data-only studies. To date, these studies have led to 193 peer-reviewed scientific publications in 62 different journals. The mean (1.40) Relative Citation Ratio of Network publications connotes a greater-than-average influence in their fields.
UNASSIGNED: These metrics demonstrate that the PBRN research context can successfully engage practitioners and patients from diverse settings nationally with a high and sustained level of scientific productivity. This infrastructure has enabled clinical scientists in oral health and nonoral health topics and provided additional recruitment venues outside of the typical academic health center research context.

This article is the second part of a novel scoping review of the international literature that presents those key elements that underpin the foundational activities of Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs). In this article, we examine the external environment and the intersection between the internal and external environment domains.
We searched electronic databases, including MEDLINE (PubMed), OVID, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, and SAGE for publications in English between 1/1/1965 and 9/15/2021. We also searched reference lists of selected publications, gray literature and other online sources. Inductive thematic analysis was applied to construct the main themes, subthemes, and key elements from a scoping review covering up to 10 years of reported experiences of each of the 98 PBRNs that met the inclusion criteria.
In this study we present 2 main themes: \"Stakeholders at the Intersection Between the Internal and External Environment\" and the \"External Environment.\" The first is linked to the subthemes \"Patient and Community Stakeholders\" and \"Other Healthcare Stakeholders\" and 11 key elements. The second relates to the subthemes \"National Health System,\" \"Institutional/Governmental Support, National/State Policy and Regulatory Environment\" \"Professional Organizations,\" \"Leveraging Previous Research and PBRN Experience and Interacting with Other Networks\" and \"Health Information Technology (HIT) and HIT Vendors\" and 21 key elements.
Despite variations in geography, time, and healthcare context, PBRNs shared many similar developmental experiences over the past 5 decades. Their external environment contributed significantly to their developmental trajectories during the first 10 years of their operation.

UNASSIGNED: Clinical research in primary care is relatively scarce. Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are research infrastructures to overcome hurdles associated with conducting studies in primary care. In Norway, almost all 5.4 million inhabitants have access to a general practitioner (GP) through a patient-list system. This gives opportunity for a PBRN with reliable information about the general population. The aim of the current paper is to describe the establishment, organization and function of PraksisNett (the Norwegian Primary Care Research Network).
UNASSIGNED: We describe the development, funding and logistics of PraksisNett as a nationwide PBRN.
UNASSIGNED: PraksisNett received funding from the Research Council of Norway for an establishment period of five years (2018-2022). It is comprised of two parts; a human infrastructure (employees, including academic GPs) organized as four regional nodes and a coordinating node and an IT infrastructure comprised by the Snow system in conjunction with the Medrave M4 system. The core of the infrastructure is the 92 general practices that are contractually linked to PraksisNett. These include 492 GPs, serving almost 520,000 patients. Practices were recruited during 2019-2020 and comprise a representative mix of rural and urban settings spread throughout all regions of Norway.
UNASSIGNED: Norway has established a nationwide PBRN to reduce hurdles for conducting clinical studies in primary care. Improved infrastructure for clinical studies in primary care is expected to increase the attractiveness for studies on the management of disorders and diseases in primary care and facilitate international research collaboration. This will benefit both patients, GPs and society in terms of improved quality of care.Key pointsPractice-based research networks (PBRNs) are research infrastructures to overcome hurdles associated with conducting studies in primary careImproved infrastructure for clinical studies in primary care is expected to increase the attractiveness for studies on the management of disorders and diseases in primary care and facilitate international research collaborationWe describe PraksisNett, a Norwegian PBRN consisting of 92 general practices including 492 GPs, serving almost 520,000 patientsAn advanced and secure IT infrastructure connects the general practices to PraksisNett and makes it possible to identify and recruit patients in a novel way, as well as reuse clinical dataPraksisNett will benefit both patients, GPs and society in terms of improved quality of careThis paper may inform and inspire initiatives to establish PBRNs elsewhere.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to explore preceptors, residency program directors (RPDs), and residents\' beliefs and intentions in participating in multicenter pediatric resident research projects (PRRPs).
METHODS: This exploratory qualitative study used the theory of planned behavior to explore beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward participation in a multicenter PRRP. Two focus groups were formed: RPDs/preceptors and pharmacy residents. The primary objective was to identify attitudes/salient beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls regarding participation in multicenter PRRPs. The secondary objectives included identifying potential barriers and mitigation strategies for multicenter PRRPs. Descriptive statistics and a thematic analysis were performed.
RESULTS: The 2 focus groups included 24 participants: RPDs/preceptors (n = 16) and pharmacy residents (n = 8). The RPD/preceptor group had a mean of 7.4 ± 5.4 years of research experience; all residents had prior research experience as students. Participants shared and contrasted their salient beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control beliefs about logistical challenges, networking, mentoring, sample size, collaboration, workload, shared responsibilities for data collection and the institutional review board application, and resources associated with participation in multicenter PRRPs. Other items that participants felt were important were discussion of authorship order and dedicated research time for residents.
CONCLUSIONS: Participants provided favorable comments toward multicenter PRRPs but acknowledged some barriers. The resident, preceptor, and RPD intention to participate in multi-center PRRPs is very likely if they perceive this as an opportunity for increased networking and mentorship, increased likelihood of publication, enhanced research skill experience, and shared resources and responsibilities.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often remains undiagnosed and untreated. To date, COPD screening/case finding has not been designed to identify clinically significant COPD, disease ready for therapies beyond smoking cessation. Herein, we describe the ongoing prospective, pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial to assess specificity and sensitivity of the COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE) tool consisting of 5 questions and peak expiratory flow. The tool is designed to identify clinically significant COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] to forced vital capacity [FVC] ratio <.70 plus FEV1% predicted <60% or increased risk for exacerbation) and the trial will explore the impact of CAPTURE-based screening on COPD diagnosis and treatment rates in primary care patients. Of a total planned enrollment of 5000 English- or Spanish-speaking patients 45 to 80 years of age without a prior COPD diagnosis from 100 primary care practices, a total of 68 practices and 3064 patients have been enrolled in the study. Practices are centrally randomized to either usual care or clinician receipt of patient-level CAPTURE results. All clinicians receive basic COPD education with those in intervention practices also receiving CAPTURE interpretation education. In a single visit, patient participants complete a CAPTURE screening, pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry and baseline demographic and health questionnaires to validate CAPTURE sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of identifying undiagnosed, clinically significant COPD. One-year follow-up chart reviews and participant surveys assess the impact of sharing versus not sharing CAPTURE results with clinicians on clinical outcomes including level of respiratory symptoms and events and clinicians\' initiation of recommendation-concordant COPD care. This is one of the first U.S. studies to validate and assess impact of a simple COPD screening tool in primary care.