DPBRN learned several lessons regarding its administrative structure in its early years;several aspects evolved accordingly. For example, although our PSC was the main decision-making body, we soon realized that we needed a Regional Directors Committee (RDC) to decide how best to implement those decisions. We next learned that the RDC could easily get its agenda bogged down by discussing details of particular studies, so next we formed study implementation groups, whose only agenda item was to discuss a single study. However, we next learned that this same team really needed to shepherd the study in each phase, from study design, to pilot testing, to field phase management, to data analysis and manuscript preparation. Thus we formed Study Teams for each study (led by the Study PI). Weekly meetings between the National Network Director group and the Data Coordinating Center group fostered communication between these two groups, adjusted priorities weekly, and established clarity about who was supposed to do what and when. We later realized that our Regional Coordinators (research assistants) needed to discuss agenda items not specific to a particular study, so we began Regional Coordinator meetings. We also learned that we needed a formal document to guide administration of publications and presentations, completing in 2006 the DPBRN publications policy [22], which in 2009 served as the template for the CONDOR three-network policy [23]. Coincident with all this we saw the communication value of taking minutes at each meeting, with a focus on recording Decisions, assigning Action Items with deadlines, and holding persons accountable for those items. Although this amounted to a significant number of committees, it improved our effectiveness substantially. Because the network must have many 'balls in the air'at the same time to maximize its productivity, we believe that this evolution in administrative structure fostered our productivity in the 2005-2012 cycle. Therefore, we propose the same administrative structure for NDPBRN, depicted in the graphic below. The best structure is the one that leads to the best function and performance. We believe that structure is best compared across networks not by comparing assertions about structure or planned collaborations, but by using objective measures of output (i.e., the ones delineated in Section B.I., p. 222).

Agency
National Institute of Health (NIH)
Institute
National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
Type
Research Program--Cooperative Agreements (U19)
Project #
1U19DE022516-01
Application #
8264404
Study Section
Special Emphasis Panel (ZDE1-JH (23))
Project Start
2012-04-06
Project End
2019-03-31
Budget Start
2012-04-06
Budget End
2013-03-31
Support Year
1
Fiscal Year
2012
Total Cost
$9,976,266
Indirect Cost
$1,254,120
Name
University of Alabama Birmingham
Department
Type
DUNS #
063690705
City
Birmingham
State
AL
Country
United States
Zip Code
35294
Nixdorf, Donald R; Law, Alan S; Lindquist, Kimberly et al. (2016) Frequency, impact, and predictors of persistent pain after root canal treatment: a national dental PBRN study. Pain 157:159-65
Eleazer, Paul D; Gilbert, Gregg H; Funkhouser, Ellen et al. (2016) Techniques and materials used by general dentists during endodontic treatment procedures: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent Assoc 147:19-27
Funkhouser, Ellen; Vellala, Kavya; Baltuck, Camille et al. (2016) Survey Methods to Optimize Response Rate in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Eval Health Prof :
Makhija, Sonia K; Lawson, Nathaniel C; Gilbert, Gregg H et al. (2016) Dentist material selection for single-unit crowns: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Dent 55:40-47
Pigg, Maria; Nixdorf, Donald R; Nguyen, Ruby H N et al. (2016) Validity of Preoperative Clinical Findings to Identify Dental Pulp Status: A National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Study. J Endod 42:935-42
Cutrona, Sarah L; Sadasivam, Rajani S; DeLaughter, Kathryn et al. (2016) Online tobacco websites and online communities-who uses them and do users quit smoking? The quit-primo and national dental practice-based research network Hi-Quit studies. Transl Behav Med 6:546-557
McCracken, Michael S; Louis, David R; Litaker, Mark S et al. (2016) Treatment recommendations for single-unit crowns: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent Assoc 147:882-890
Yokoyama, Yoko; Kakudate, Naoki; Sumida, Futoshi et al. (2016) Evidence-practice gap for dental sealant application: results from a dental practice-based research network in Japan. Int Dent J 66:330-336
Mungia, Rahma; Buchberg, Meredith; Hayes, Holly et al. (2016) Connecting and Collaborating: Developing National Dental PBRN Study Concepts Through POD Engagement. Health Promot Pract 17:278-84
Nixdorf, Donald R; Law, Alan S; John, Mike T et al. (2015) Differential diagnoses for persistent pain after root canal treatment: a study in the National Dental Practice-based Research Network. J Endod 41:457-63

Showing the most recent 10 out of 58 publications