Infrastructure Working group

The meetings focused on the infrastructure needs for Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs) and the practical steps to translate ideas into reality. The discussions highlighted the importance of sustainable infrastructure funding, practical steps to support PBRNs, and the evolving roles and missions of PBRNs.

Seven persons participated twice

Key Points Discussed

• Infrastructure Funding:

  • Emphasis on the need for sustainable infrastructure funding for PBRNs.

  • Suggestions included developing relationships with national centers like NCI or CTSA to ensure recurring grant opportunities that include infrastructure costs.

• Practical Steps:

  •   Developing relationships with funding bodies and creating pilot funding mechanisms for new researchers.

  • Addressing the varying needs of PBRNs based on their size and affiliation.

  • Ensuring flexibility and innovation within PBRNs while maintaining their missions.

  • Supporting new PBRNs to emerge and grow.

• Consortium Model:

  • Creating consortiums to handle infrastructure needs as a potential solution to support smaller PBRNs.

  • Consortiums could provide centralized functions like grant writing, IRB support, and other essential services.

• Engagement and Participation:

  • Emphasizing the importance of engaging practices and maintaining relationships with them.

  • The need for face-to-face interactions to build trust and ensure successful participation in research studies.

• Roles and Missions of PBRNs:

  • Adjusting the roles and missions of PBRNs to align with the new environment.

  • Considering PBRN leaders as business-like managers with managerial education.

  • Balancing top-down and bottom-up management approaches.

• Value Proposition:

  • Highlighting the value of PBRNs to institutions, including maintaining relationships with practices and supporting clinical training sites.

  • Emphasizing the importance of documenting and incorporating the indirect costs of PBRN work into organizational calculations.

• Research Ready Practices:

  • Developing research-ready practices to streamline future collaborations.

  • Building base relationships and processes to reduce the lift for future projects.

• Workforce Development:

  • Facilitating the development of clinical investigators who want to participate in research regularly.

  • Developing PBRN leaders who can run PBRNs effectively and engage practices in meaningful research.

• Program-Based Support:

  • Advocating for program-based support rather than project-based funding to maintain infrastructure and institutional knowledge.

  • Ensuring that funding mechanisms account for the true expenses of PBRN-related work.

  • Participants were not interested to pursue the “funded Center grant” pathway, i.e. to specify details of an RFA for future promotion /use by AHRQ or NIH

  • Rather, they asserted and agreed that funding for PBRN infrastructure should be included, and required to be included in CTSAs, National Cancer Centers and other similar large institutional grants, such that the infrastructure is both invested in and maintained as a core “fixed cost”, similar to the fixed cost of maintaining laboratory facilities, rather than maintaining those human or other resources as part of “project funding” that must of necessity be repeatedly re-funded by the next project, or be at-risk of loss. This should be a requirement for renewal of CTSA and NCI Cancer institute funding.

• Next Steps:

  • Summarizing notes and conversations from the sessions.

  • Sharing insights with other workgroups focused on environment and policy, and human resources and pipeline development.

  • Planning for a workshop at NAPCRG to report on the discussions and develop a comprehensive strategy to support PBRNs

Conclusion

The infrastructure working group meetings concluded with a plan to continue discussions and share insights across different workgroups. The ultimate goal is to develop a comprehensive strategy to support PBRNs and ensure their sustainability and growth.