A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis exploring the impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine.
Allied health professions
Clinical academics
Midwifery
Nursing
Research impact
Systematic review
Thematic synthesis
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Apr 2021
29 Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
24
11
2020
accepted:
31
03
2021
entrez:
30
4
2021
pubmed:
1
5
2021
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There are increasing opportunities for healthcare professionals outside medicine to be involved in and lead clinical research. However, there are few roles within these professions that include time for research. In order to develop such roles, and evaluate effective use of this time, the range of impacts of this clinical academic activity need to be valued and understood by healthcare leaders and managers. To date, these impacts have not been comprehensively explored, but are suggested to extend beyond traditional quantitative impact metrics, such as publications, citations and funding awards. Ten databases, four grey literature repositories and a naïve web search engine were systematically searched for articles reporting impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine. Specifically, this did not include the direct impacts of the research findings, rather the impacts of the research activity. All stages of the review were performed by a minimum of two reviewers and reported impacts were categorised qualitatively according to a modified VICTOR (making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research) framework. Of the initial 2704 identified articles, 20 were eligible for inclusion. Identified impacts were mapped to seven themes: impacts for patients; impacts for the service provision and workforce; impacts to research profile, culture and capacity; economic impacts; impacts on staff recruitment and retention; impacts to knowledge exchange; and impacts to the clinical academic. Several overlapping sub-themes were identified across the main themes. These included the challenges and benefits of balancing clinical and academic roles, the creation and implementation of new evidence, and the development of collaborations and networks. These may be key areas for organisations to explore when looking to support and increase academic activity among healthcare professionals outside medicine. The modified VICTOR tool is a useful starting point for individuals and organisations to record the impact of their research activity. Further work is needed to explore standardised methods of capturing research impact that address the full range of impacts identified in this systematic review and are specific to the context of clinical academics outside medicine.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There are increasing opportunities for healthcare professionals outside medicine to be involved in and lead clinical research. However, there are few roles within these professions that include time for research. In order to develop such roles, and evaluate effective use of this time, the range of impacts of this clinical academic activity need to be valued and understood by healthcare leaders and managers. To date, these impacts have not been comprehensively explored, but are suggested to extend beyond traditional quantitative impact metrics, such as publications, citations and funding awards.
METHODS
METHODS
Ten databases, four grey literature repositories and a naïve web search engine were systematically searched for articles reporting impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine. Specifically, this did not include the direct impacts of the research findings, rather the impacts of the research activity. All stages of the review were performed by a minimum of two reviewers and reported impacts were categorised qualitatively according to a modified VICTOR (making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research) framework.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the initial 2704 identified articles, 20 were eligible for inclusion. Identified impacts were mapped to seven themes: impacts for patients; impacts for the service provision and workforce; impacts to research profile, culture and capacity; economic impacts; impacts on staff recruitment and retention; impacts to knowledge exchange; and impacts to the clinical academic.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Several overlapping sub-themes were identified across the main themes. These included the challenges and benefits of balancing clinical and academic roles, the creation and implementation of new evidence, and the development of collaborations and networks. These may be key areas for organisations to explore when looking to support and increase academic activity among healthcare professionals outside medicine. The modified VICTOR tool is a useful starting point for individuals and organisations to record the impact of their research activity. Further work is needed to explore standardised methods of capturing research impact that address the full range of impacts identified in this systematic review and are specific to the context of clinical academics outside medicine.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33926441
doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06354-y
pii: 10.1186/s12913-021-06354-y
pmc: PMC8082861
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
400Références
Arch Intern Med. 2008 Mar 24;168(6):657-62
pubmed: 18362259
Public Health. 2018 Apr;157:1-6
pubmed: 29438805
J Nurs Adm. 2017 Jun;47(6):350-355
pubmed: 28538466
J Pharm Pract. 2017 Jun;30(3):336-341
pubmed: 27112734
Can Oncol Nurs J. 2012 Winter;22(1):31-41
pubmed: 22443046
Nurs Econ. 2008 Jan-Feb;26(1):26-34
pubmed: 18389839
J Nurs Educ. 2014 Jul 1;53(7):403-9
pubmed: 24971730
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2018 Jun 21;11:269-277
pubmed: 29950853
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
J Eval Clin Pract. 2020 Feb;26(1):203-208
pubmed: 30784152
J Clin Nurs. 2013 Apr;22(7-8):1103-11
pubmed: 23170875
Aust J Prim Health. 2012;18(1):62-7
pubmed: 22394664
J Clin Nurs. 2019 Jul;28(13-14):2681-2687
pubmed: 30938867
J Clin Nurs. 2017 Mar;26(5-6):766-773
pubmed: 27534833
J Clin Nurs. 2020 Dec 28;:
pubmed: 33370491
Med Educ. 2017 Jun;51(6):645-655
pubmed: 28247420
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Feb 8;16(1):8
pubmed: 29422063
Midwifery. 2006 Jun;22(2):108-19
pubmed: 16243416
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Jul 10;8:45
pubmed: 18616818
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 7;9(10):e030595
pubmed: 31594886
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jul;111:49-59.e1
pubmed: 30905698
BMC Med. 2016 May 23;14:78
pubmed: 27211576
BMJ Open. 2015 Dec 09;5(12):e009415
pubmed: 26656023
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Aug 05;16(a):355
pubmed: 27495229
Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 Feb 6;15(1):6
pubmed: 28166817
BMC Nurs. 2017 May 2;16:21
pubmed: 28469530
Nurs Outlook. 2019 Jan - Feb;67(1):6-12
pubmed: 30126740
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2019 Jan 14;12:83-96
pubmed: 30666124
BMC Med Educ. 2019 Jul 9;19(1):255
pubmed: 31288819
PLoS Med. 2017 Aug 9;14(8):e1002370
pubmed: 28792957
Contemp Nurse. 2010 Jun;35(2):171-81
pubmed: 20950198