Dataset Information

A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis exploring the impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine.

ABSTRACT:

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

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

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

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.

SUBMITTER: Newington L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8082861 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare 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.MethodsThe 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.Results96 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.ConclusionsDoctoral 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.

Project description:Complementary 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.To assess healthcare professionals' sources of knowledge and attitude toward CM in an academic hospital.The 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.Factors influencing healthcare professionals' opinion toward CM, knowledge and communication about CM.The 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.Different 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:ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to systematically review and synthesise qualitative papers exploring views and experiences of acne and its treatments among people with acne, their carers and healthcare professionals (HCPs).DesignSystematic review and synthesis of qualitative papers.MethodsPapers were identified through Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, PsychINFO and CINAHL on 05 November 2019, forward and backward citation searching, Google Scholar and contacting authors. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting qualitative data and analysis, studies carried out among people with acne, their carers or HCPs and studies comprising different skin conditions, including acne. The title and abstracts of papers were independently screened by three researchers. Appraisal was carried out using the adapted Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Thematic synthesis was used to synthesise findings.ResultsA total of 20 papers were included from six countries. Papers explored; experiences living with acne, psychosocial impact of acne, views on causation of acne, perceptions of acne treatments, ambivalence and ambiguity in young people's experience of acne and HCPs' attitudes towards acne management. Findings suggest that people often viewed acne as short-term and that this had implications for acne management, particularly long-term treatment adherence. People often felt that the substantial impact of acne was not recognised by others, or that their condition was 'trivialised' by HCPs. The sense of a lack of control over acne and control over treatment was linked to both psychological impact and treatment adherence. Concerns and uncertainty over acne treatments were influenced by variable advice and information from others.ConclusionsPeople need support with understanding the long-term management of acne, building control over acne and its treatments, acknowledging the impact and appropriate information to reduce the barriers to effective treatment use.Prospero registration numberCRD42016050525.

Project description:BackgroundMost patients are insufficiently physically active during their hospital stay, and this is associated with poor health and delayed recovery. Hospital-based multifaceted interventions aim to encourage patients to engage in physical activity. Ban Bedcentricity is one such intervention. Its value - and that of others similar to it - for healthcare professionals has not been studied yet. Whether an intervention looks and feels right, and whether it does the job well, is important for healthcare professionals and thus its use. Understanding value for healthcare professionals seems crucial for the long-term adoption and implementation of interventions. Therefore, we studied healthcare professionals' perceptions of value in terms of the implementation of a multifaceted intervention that aimed at improving physically active behaviour in patients during their hospital stay.MethodsUsing Ban Bedcentricity as a case study to focus on healthcare professionals' perceptions about multifaceted interventions, we conducted a qualitative study between November 2019 and September 2020. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposefully selected physicians, physiotherapists, and nurses (assistants) until theoretical data saturation was reached. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes and develop a conceptual model.ResultsWe interviewed 15 healthcare professionals and formulated six key themes from these interviews. The participants said that Ban Bedcentricity empowered them in their beliefs about the importance of physical activity for hospitalized patients (theme 1). They also indicated that it made them more aware of the value of physical activity (theme 2) and skilled to promote physical activity as part of their professional role (theme 3). Similarly, they noted that it enabled them to shift from providing hands-on support to verbal coaching (theme 4). Other aspects that the participants valued were the increased possibilities for teamwork (theme 5) and the routinized physical activity promotion in usual care (theme 6). The challenges discussed by the participants were prioritizing activities that promoted physical activity, especially because of a high workload, and avoiding relapses of new routinized work practices related to physical activity promotion if insufficient long-term support and training were provided.ConclusionsOur conceptual model shows that the implementation of a hospital-based multifaceted intervention by healthcare professionals empowers their beliefs, and improves their awareness, skills, professional roles, teamwork, and work routinization. These values are typically overlooked, despite potentially being important facilitators for long-term implementation.

Project description:BackgroundMany qualitative studies report the post-diagnostic care experiences of carers and people living with dementia; however, this is not often accompanied by opportunities to hear the corresponding views of their health care professionals and how this triadic relationship functions. The aim of this review was to identify and thematically synthesize the experiences of health care services reported by people living with dementia, their carers and health care professionals.MethodsMedline, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL were searched from inception to 31 July 2019 for qualitative research including people living with dementia, carers and health care professionals. Data were coded and thematically synthesised using NVivo.ResultsOf 10,045 search results, 29 papers relating to 27 studies were included in the final synthesis, including 261 people living with dementia, 444 carers and 530 health care professionals. Six themes emerged related to the functioning of a dementia care triad: (1) involving the person living with dementia, (2) establishing expectations of care and the roles of the members of the triad, (3) building trust, (4) effective communication, (5) continuity of care and (6) understanding the unique relationship dynamics within each triad.DiscussionThe interactions and complexity of triadic dementia care relationships further our understanding of how to improve dementia care. Awareness of possible diverging attitudes highlights areas of necessary improvement and further research into facilitating engagement, such as when multiple professionals are involved or where there are mismatched expectations of the roles of triad members. In order to operate efficiently as a triad member, professionals should be aware of how pre-existing relations can influence the composition of a triad, encourage the involvement of the person living with dementia, clarify the expectations of all parties, establish trusting relationships and enable communication within the direct triad and beyond.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In response to high demand and the growing body of evidence for traditional and complementary therapies, the practice of integrative medicine and integrative healthcare has emerged where these therapies are blended with conventional healthcare. While there are a number of academic integrative healthcare centres worldwide, there are none in Australia. Western Sydney University will soon establish an academic integrative healthcare centre offering evidence-informed traditional and complementary therapies integrated with conventional healthcare in a research-based culture. The aim of this study was to explore healthcare consumers' views about the perceived need, advantages, and disadvantages of the proposed centre and its relevance to community-defined problems and health and service needs. METHODS:Qualitative methods, informed by community-based participatory research, were used during 2017. Focus groups supplemented with semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare consumers. Participants were recruited through paid advertisements on Facebook. Thematic coding, informed by an integrative healthcare continuum, was used to analyse and organise the data. Analysis was augmented with descriptive statistics of participant demographic details. RESULTS:Three main themes emerged: (i) the integrative approach, (i) person-centred care, and (iii) safety and quality. Participants proposed a coordinated healthcare model, with perspectives falling along a continuum from parallel and consultative to fully integrative models of healthcare. The importance of multidisciplinary collaboration and culturally appropriate, team-based care within a supportive healing environment was emphasised. A priority of providing broad and holistic healthcare that was person centred and treated the whole person was valued. It was proposed that safety and quality standards be met by medical oversight, evidence-informed practice, practitioner competency, and interprofessional communication. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings demonstrate that participants desired greater integration of conventional healthcare with traditional and complementary therapies within a team-based, person-centred environment with assurances of safety and quality. Findings will be used to refine the model of care for an academic integrative healthcare centre in Western Sydney.