Dataset Information

Frontline Clinician Appraisement of Research Engagement: "I feel out of touch with research".

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health services research can benefit from frontline clinician input across all stages of research, yet their key perspectives are often not meaningfully engaged.

Objective

How can we improve clinician engagement in research?

Design

Convenience sampling and semi-structured interviews followed by descriptive content analysis with an inductive approach, followed by group participatory listening sessions with interviewees to further contextualize findings.

Participants

Twenty-one multidisciplinary clinicians from one healthcare system.

Key results

We identified two major themes: perceptions of research (how research fits within job role) and characterizing effective engagement (what works and what does not work in frontline clinician engagement). "Perceptions of Research" encompassed three subthemes: prior research experience; desired degree of engagement; and benefits to clinicians engaging in research. "Characterizing Effective Engagement" had these subthemes: engagement barriers; engagement facilitators; and impact of clinician's racial identity.

Conclusions

Investing in frontline clinicians as research collaborators is beneficial to clinicians themselves, the health systems that employ them, and those for which they care. Yet, there are multiple barriers to meaningful engagement.

SUBMITTER: Boucher NA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10112825 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Frontline Clinician Appraisement of Research Engagement: "I feel out of touch with research".

Boucher Nathan A NA Tucker Matthew C MC White Brandolyn S BS Ear Belinda B Dubey Manisha M Byrd Kaileigh G KG Williams John W JW Gierisch Jennifer M JM

Journal of general internal medicine 20230418 12

<h4>Background</h4>Health services research can benefit from frontline clinician input across all stages of research, yet their key perspectives are often not meaningfully engaged.<h4>Objective</h4>How can we improve clinician engagement in research?<h4>Design</h4>Convenience sampling and semi-structured interviews followed by descriptive content analysis with an inductive approach, followed by group participatory listening sessions with interviewees to further contextualize findings.<h4>Partici ...[more]

PMID: 37072534

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) created new incentives for organizations to improve healthcare value, Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) have achieved only modest reductions in the use of low-value care.ObjectiveTo assess ACO engagement of clinicians and whether engagement was associated with clinicians' reported difficulty implementing recommendations against low-value care.DesignCross-sectional survey of ACO clinicians in 2018.Participants1289 clinicians in the Physician Organization of Michigan ACO, including generalist physicians (18%), internal medicine specialists (16%), surgeons (10%), other physician specialists (27%), and advanced practice providers (29%). Response rate was 34%.Main measuresPrimary exposures included clinicians' participation in ACO decision-making, awareness of ACO incentives, perceived influence on practice, and perceived quality improvement. Our primary outcome was clinicians' reported difficulty implementing recommendations against low-value care.ResultsFew clinicians participated in the decision to join the ACO (3%). Few clinicians were aware of ACO incentives, including knowing the ACO was accountable for both spending and quality (23%), successfully lowered spending (9%), or faced upside risk only (3%). Few agreed (moderately or strongly) the ACO changed compensation (20%), practice (19%), or feedback (15%) or that it improved care coordination (17%) or inappropriate care (13%). Clinicians reported they had difficulty following recommendations against low-value care 18% of the time; clinicians reported patients had difficulty accepting recommendations 36% of the time. Increased ACO awareness (1 standard deviation [SD]) was associated with decreased difficulty (- 2.3 percentage points) implementing recommendations (95% confidence interval [CI] - 3.8, - 0.7), as was perceived quality improvement (1 SD increase, - 2.1 percentage points, 95% CI, - 3.4, - 0.8). Participation in ACO decision-making and perceived influence on practice were not associated with recommendation implementation.ConclusionsClinicians participating in a large Medicare ACO were broadly unaware of and unengaged with ACO objectives and activities. Whether low clinician engagement limits ACO efforts to reduce low-value care warrants further longitudinal study.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the drivers of distress and motivations faced by interdisciplinary clinicians who were on the frontline caring for patients with COVID-19.Design50 semistructured interviews. Transcripts were analysed using qualitative thematic analysis.SettingA safety-net hospital in Denver, Colorado.ParticipantsInterdisciplinary frontline clinicians including physicians, advance practice providers, nurses, respiratory therapists and paramedics providing inpatient hospital care to patients hospitalised for COVID-19.ResultsFifty clinicians (32 women and 18 men) participated. Five themes with respective subthemes (in parentheses) were identified: depersonalisation and barriers to care (impeding rapport and compassion, focusing on infection risk at the expense of high-quality care, grief from witnessing patients suffer in isolation), powerless in uncertainty (inescapable awareness of personal risk, therapeutic doubt in a void of evidence, confronting ethical dilemmas, struggling with dynamic and unfamiliar challenges), overwhelmed and exhausted (burden of personal protective equipment (PPE), information overload and confusion, overstretched by additional responsibilities at work, compounded by personal life stressors, feeling vulnerable and dispensable, compassion fatigue, distress from the disproportionate impact on socially oppressed communities), bolstering morale and confidence (motivated by community and family support, equipped with data), and driven by moral duty (responsibility to patient care and community, collegial solidarity and collaboration, contributing to the greater good).ConclusionFrontline clinicians reported distress due to the challenges of PPE, uncertainty and powerlessness, new responsibilities at work and home, losing control of their schedules, grief from witnessing patients suffer in isolation and witnessing healthcare disparities exacerbated by this pandemic. Clinicians feel supported by their colleagues, families, and community and were driven by a sense of moral duty. Healthcare system should adopt strategies to minimise distress faced by interdisciplinary clinicians on the frontline of COVID-19.

Project description:BACKGROUND: A compelling ethical rationale supports patient engagement in healthcare research. It is also assumed that patient engagement will lead to research findings that are more pertinent to patients' concerns and dilemmas. However; it is unclear how to best conduct this process. In this systematic review we aimed to answer 4 key questions: what are the best ways to identify patient representatives? How to engage them in designing and conducting research? What are the observed benefits of patient engagement? What are the harms and barriers of patient engagement? METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane, EBSCO, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Business Search Premier, Academic Search Premier and Google Scholar. Included studies were published in English, of any size or design that described engaging patients or their surrogates in research design. We conducted an environmental scan of the grey literature and consulted with experts and patients. Data were analyzed using a non-quantitative, meta-narrative approach. RESULTS: We included 142 studies that described a spectrum of engagement. In general, engagement was feasible in most settings and most commonly done in the beginning of research (agenda setting and protocol development) and less commonly during the execution and translation of research. We found no comparative analytic studies to recommend a particular method. Patient engagement increased study enrollment rates and aided researchers in securing funding, designing study protocols and choosing relevant outcomes. The most commonly cited challenges were related to logistics (extra time and funding needed for engagement) and to an overarching worry of a tokenistic engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Patient engagement in healthcare research is likely feasible in many settings. However, this engagement comes at a cost and can become tokenistic. Research dedicated to identifying the best methods to achieve engagement is lacking and clearly needed.

Dataset Information

Frontline Clinician Appraisement of Research Engagement: "I feel out of touch with research".

Background

Objective

Design

Participants

Key results

Conclusions

Publications

Frontline Clinician Appraisement of Research Engagement: "I feel out of touch with research".

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets