Dataset Information

Healthcare professionals in research (HPiR) Facebook community: a survey of U.K. doctoral and postdoctoral healthcare professionals outside of medicine.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Healthcare professionals outside of medicine (HCPs), including nurses, midwives and allied health professionals, are increasingly involved in research for patient benefit. Their challenge is to negotiate inter-professional or professionally isolated contexts. The aims of this study were to evaluate the 'Healthcare Professionals in Research' (HPiR) Facebook group (a self-directed and confidential peer support group for doctoral and postdoctoral HCPs) including engagement, the experiences of doctoral and postdoctoral HPiR members and to identify future career challenges using an on-line survey.

Methods

The HPiR Facebook group was launched in May 2019. Five HCP Community managers (CMs) were trained in on-line platform curation, moderation and screening. An on-line survey was designed to capture data from HPiR members. A purposive sampling approach was applied. Respondents were required to be doctoral and postdoctoral HCPs and a registered member of the HPiR group. Respondents represented a range of healthcare professions, 79 % of whom had over ten years clinical experience. Membership growth and engagement was analysed. Descriptive statistics were used to present numerical data. Qualitative data were analysed thematically.

Results

96 members were admitted to the group within the first month. All members were actively engaged with group content. 34/96 doctoral and postdoctoral HCPs completed the survey. Most members joined for networking (88 %) and peer support (82 %) purposes. Analysis of text responses showed difficulties in balancing a clinical academic career and highlighted the consequences of undefined clinical academic roles and pathways.

Conclusions

Doctoral and postdoctoral HCPs value the opportunities that HPiR provides for peer support and connection with fellow HCPs. HPiR has the potential to strengthen research capacity, support research skill development and drive change within the clinical academic community. Clinical academic roles and pathways need to be standardised. The creation of opportunities beyond doctoral studies is a priority.

SUBMITTER: Deane JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8067642 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere 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.MethodsTen 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsSeveral 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.

Project description:BackgroundComplementary medicine (CM) is utilized in a growing number of academic centers despite the debate concerning its value, risks and benefits. Healthcare professionals often feel uncomfortable discussing CM with patients, and little is known about their sources of knowledge in the field of CM.ObjectiveTo assess healthcare professionals' sources of knowledge and attitude toward CM in an academic hospital.Design and participantsThe cross-sectional web-based survey took place from October to December 2013. A total of 4,925 healthcare professionals working at Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland, were invited to answer the questionnaire.Main measuresFactors influencing healthcare professionals' opinion toward CM, knowledge and communication about CM.Key resultsThe questionnaire was answered by 1,247 healthcare professionals. The three key factors influencing professionals' opinion toward CM were personal experience, clinical experience and evidence demonstrating the physiological mechanism of CM. Personal experience was more associated with nurses' and midwives' opinion compared to physicians' (80.8% vs 57.1%, OR = 3.08, [95% CI: 2.35-4.05], P<0.001 and 85.3% vs 57.1%, OR = 3.83, [95% CI: 1.95-7.53], P<0.001, respectively) as well as with professionals trained in CM compared to non-trained professionals (86.0% vs 73.2%, OR = 2.60, [95% CI: 1.92-3.53], P<0.001). Physicians relied more on randomized controlled clinical trials compared to nurses (81.3% vs 62.9%, OR = 0.43, [95% CI: 0.33-0.57], P<0.001). A majority of the respondents (82.5%) agreed that they lacked knowledge about CM and 65.0% noted that it was the patient who initially started the discussion about CM.ConclusionsDifferent professionals used different strategies to forge opinions regarding CM: physicians relied more on scientific evidence, while nurses and midwives were more influenced by personal experience. Regardless of preferred information source, most respondents did not feel prepared to address patient questions regarding CM. Enhancing interprofessional education opportunities is an important strategy to help providers become empowered to discuss CM with patients. This in turn will help patients making informed decisions in their healthcare.

Project description:BackgroundResearchers are increasingly using social media advertisements to recruit participants because of their many advantages over traditional methods. Although there is growing evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of social media recruitment in the health sciences, no studies have yet examined this in the context of suicide prevention, which remains to be a highly stigmatized and sensitive topic.ObjectiveThis study aims to recruit a general community sample to complete a survey on suicide literacy, stigma, and risk via Facebook advertisements. Specifically, we aim to establish the performance of the advertisements, cost-effectiveness, sample representativeness, and the impact of gender-specific advertising on recruiting men into the study.MethodsFrom June 2017 to March 2019, we released Facebook advertisements targeted at adults 18 years or older, residing in the New South Wales (NSW) trial or control regions, and involved in the LifeSpan suicide prevention trial. Cost-effectiveness was examined descriptively using metrics provided by Facebook. Chi-square analyses were conducted to determine demographic differences between our sample and the general NSW population as well as the impact of gender-specific advertisements on gender engagement.ResultsThe 14 Facebook advertisement campaigns reached a total of 675,199 people, yielding 25,993 link clicks and resulting in 9603 individuals initiating the survey (7487 completions) at an overall cost of Aus $2.81 (US $2.01) per participant. There was an overrepresentation of younger (P=.003), female (P=.003), highly educated (P<.001) participants and mental health conditions (P<.001) compared with the total NSW population. The use of male-specific advertisements resulted in a significantly higher proportion of men completing the survey relative to gender-neutral advertisements (38.2% vs 24.6%; P<.001).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the potential of Facebook to be an effective, low-cost strategy for recruiting a large sample of general community participants for suicide prevention research. Strategies to improve sample representativeness warrant further investigation in future research.