Semi-structured focus groups were conducted in five U.S. practices, all owned by an independent academic medical center. Each had participated in at least one research study but were not part of a practice-based research network or affiliated with a medical school. Data were analyzed using NVIVO-9 by using a multistep coding process. Findings The perceived constraints offered by the participants echoed those featured in previous studies. Secondary analyses of the interconnected nature of these factors highlighted a valuable and sensitive 'Flow' that is evident at the individual, interaction, and organizational levels of primary care practice. Engaging in research appears to pose a significant threat to the outcomes of Flow (i.e., revenue, patient health outcomes, and the overall well-being of the practice). It is posited that the risk of not meeting expected productivity-based outcomes, which appear to be dictated by current dominant reimbursement models, frames the overall process of research-related decision making in primary care. Within the funding/reimbursement models of the US health-care system, engaging in research does not appear to be advantageous for primary care practices.

This study revealed important benefits of Wise Guys and proposed future mixed methods research to ensure that authentic teen voices inform programming. Nurses working with adolescents may find this information valuable as they address sexual health issues in their work.

Previous research with teens raised questions on the validity of survey studies with this population. As one response, our team implemented a mixed-methods study to evaluate an evidence-based, interactive curriculum, Wise Guys, that is designed to promote healthy relationships and sexual behavior in young men 14–17 years of age. The current study included a Youth Advisory Group, focus groups, and a video-journaling project to delineate teens’ thoughts on the most salient aspects of Wise Guys and we used these to develop a stakeholder-informed survey instrument. The survey was administered via REDCap, a computer-based medium via phones and mobile devices. Quantitative survey analyses revealed significant positive changes in study constructs. Qualitative interpretations provided rich data that validated the survey findings. Community engagement in the research process and mixed methods may provide the infrastructure for future research and evaluation efforts related to teens.

Community-engagement is a key step in conducting research which is impactful for patients and communities. The Delaware Clinical and Translational Research (DE-CTR), Accelerating Clinical and Translational Research (ACCEL) program has implemented several successful approaches to engage our community, and to educate and motivate our researchers in this area. Increased participation in community-engaged research and community-based participatory research was accomplished through DE-CTR/ACCEL using multiple methods detailed in this manuscript. The community engagement infrastructure has fostered community involvement in translational research including capacity development, implementation, evaluation and dissemination. Academic-community partnerships for research, such as those implemented in ACCEL will be crucial to addressing health disparities and health priorities.