Abstract
We read the recent publication by Giuliano, et al. and applaud their assertion that resident research could and should be collaborative through multicenter endeavors. 1 The authors provide specific examples for major project milestones including development of an overview committee, development of the research question, navigating Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, coordinating site recruitment, protocol development, data collection, and manuscript development. Previous authors have outlined similar key steps in conducting general multicenter research, and we agree each of these steps are critical in conducting successful multicenter pharmacy resident research projects. 2 Giuliano et al provide recommendations and guidance on how to approach each of these topics from a multicenter perspective as well as common barriers that may be encountered. Furthermore, the authors provide a suggested timeline for completion which is very reasonable, though may vary from project to project. In fact, the timeline coincides quite well with the flipped research model that is gaining ground in some pharmacy residency programs. 3 The described benefits of multicenter research in other disciplines include larger sample size, more frequent publication in peer-reviewed literature, enhanced research skills, and development of more expansive professional networks. These are all important benefits and are often identified as major holes or limitations in traditional pharmacy residency research projects. 4 The authors note that, in their experience, benefits of pharmacy resident multicenter research projects mirror those seen in other professions.
We agree that multicenter research projects would provide substantial benefit to pharmacy residents during their training. While data on this belief is not widely available, others have already shared a similar sentiment. 5 In addition to enhancing research, project management, and communication skills, multicenter resident research projects would likely generate more robust, valuable, and broadly applicable primary literature towing to the increased sample size, rigor and multidisciplinary and multicenter involvement. While publication in a peer-reviewed journal is an accomplishment in and of itself, we believe multicenter research projects with robust sample sizes, solid study design, and diverse patient populations would be more likely to be accepted into larger multidisciplinary journals with higher impact factors rather than smaller specialized journals. Publishing medication-related research in pharmacy-focused journals is vitally important for our profession but conducting high-quality research and sharing it with a larger multidisciplinary audience has obvious implications for the dissemination of important research findings for patient care, as well as excellent advocacy for the clinician-scientist aspect of our profession. Furthermore, multicenter projects could assist in overcoming common barriers of traditional pharmacy practice research including limited access to research experts and mentors, time constraints for project completion, lack of research resources, and sample size limitations. 4
Currently, no formal framework exists for conducting multicenter pharmacy resident research projects; however, the article from Giuliano et al 1 may be a step in that direction for many. Additionally, we should turn to other areas of practice-based research within the pharmacy profession. Professional organizations including the Neurocritical Care Society, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) have developed successful multicenter pharmacy practice-based research initiatives where processes, idea generation, authorship considerations, data collection tools, and methods for recruiting participating sites are well-defined and collaboration is the culture. These initiatives have led to several publications in highly impactful journals including Critical Care Medicine, Circulation and Neurocritical Care, not to mention pharmacy-focused journals as well.6-9 We propose that similar initiatives supported by pharmacy organizations focusing on multicenter pharmacy resident research would likely result in similar project success, impact, and publication potential.
Anyone who attends regional pharmacy residency conferences, the ACCP Annual Meeting, or American Society of Health-System Pharmacists Midyear Clinical Meeting can see pharmacy residents across the country already complete similar projects every year. This speaks to the fact that many institutions are concerned about the same medication problems, quality metrics, and professional issues. This redundancy suggests that the approach encouraged by Giuliano, et al. would be entirely feasible with the creation of a systematic, intentional interface to facilitate collaboration across numerous institutions and residency programs. This would reduce the number of redundant projects, improve the sample size (and presumably the rigor) of research projects, provide professional networking opportunities, and increase the likelihood of publication. Ultimately the consistent success, power, and creativity of these types of groups could lead to more sustainable funding to support these, and potentially increasingly complex and impactful, projects. Our profession continues to need to find ways to move in the same direction. Successful collaboration with research (and teaching our future leaders to do the same) is an important way to accomplish this goal.
ORCID iD
Michael L. Behal https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1705-4593