Dataset Information

Measuring research capacity development in healthcare workers: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

A key barrier in supporting health research capacity development (HRCD) is the lack of empirical measurement of competencies to assess skills and identify gaps in research activities. An effective tool to measure HRCD in healthcare workers would help inform teams to undertake more locally led research. The objective of this systematic review is to identify tools measuring healthcare workers' individual capacities to conduct research.

Design

Systematic review and narrative synthesis using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist for reporting systematic reviews and narrative synthesis and the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative studies.

Data sources

11 databases were searched from inception to 16 January 2020. The first 10 pages of Google Scholar results were also screened.

Eligibility criteria

We included papers describing the use of tools/to measure/assess HRCD at an individual level among healthcare workers involved in research. Qualitative, mixed and quantitative methods were all eligible. Search was limited to English language only.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two authors independently screened and reviewed studies using Covidence software, and performed quality assessments using the extraction log validated against the CASP qualitative checklist. The content method was used to define a narrative synthesis.

Results

The titles and abstracts for 7474 unique records were screened and the full texts of 178 references were reviewed. 16 papers were selected: 7 quantitative studies; 1 qualitative study; 5 mixed methods studies; and 3 studies describing the creation of a tool. Tools with different levels of accuracy in measuring HRCD in healthcare workers at the individual level were described. The Research Capacity and Culture tool and the 'Research Spider' tool were the most commonly defined. Other tools designed for ad hoc interventions with good generalisability potential were identified. Three papers described health research core competency frameworks. All tools measured HRCD in healthcare workers at an individual level with the majority adding a measurement at the team/organisational level, or data about perceived barriers and motivators for conducting health research.

Conclusions

Capacity building is commonly identified with pre/postintervention evaluations without using a specific tool. This shows the need for a clear distinction between measuring the outcomes of training activities in a team/organisation, and effective actions promoting HRCD. This review highlights the lack of globally applicable comprehensive tools to provide comparable, standardised and consistent measurements of research competencies.

Prospero registration number

CRD42019122310.

SUBMITTER: Bilardi D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8264867 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionNumerous instruments have been developed to assess spirituality and measure its association with health outcomes. This study's aims were to identify instruments used in clinical research that measure spirituality; to propose a classification of these instruments; and to identify those instruments that could provide information on the need for spiritual intervention.MethodsA systematic literature search in MEDLINE, CINHAL, PsycINFO, ATLA, and EMBASE databases, using the terms "spirituality" and "adult$," and limited to journal articles was performed to identify clinical studies that used a spiritual assessment instrument. For each instrument identified, measured constructs, intended goals, and data on psychometric properties were retrieved. A conceptual and a functional classification of instruments were developed.ResultsThirty-five instruments were retrieved and classified into measures of general spirituality (N = 22), spiritual well-being (N = 5), spiritual coping (N = 4), and spiritual needs (N = 4) according to the conceptual classification. Instruments most frequently used in clinical research were the FACIT-Sp and the Spiritual Well-Being Scale. Data on psychometric properties were mostly limited to content validity and inter-item reliability. According to the functional classification, 16 instruments were identified that included at least one item measuring a current spiritual state, but only three of those appeared suitable to address the need for spiritual intervention.ConclusionsInstruments identified in this systematic review assess multiple dimensions of spirituality, and the proposed classifications should help clinical researchers interested in investigating the complex relationship between spirituality and health. Findings underscore the scarcity of instruments specifically designed to measure a patient's current spiritual state. Moreover, the relatively limited data available on psychometric properties of these instruments highlight the need for additional research to determine whether they are suitable in identifying the need for spiritual interventions.

Project description:BackgroundThere is an increasing need to evaluate the production and impact of medical research produced by institutions. Many indicators exist, yet we do not have enough information about their relevance. The objective of this systematic review was (1) to identify all the indicators that could be used to measure the output and outcome of medical research carried out in institutions and (2) enlist their methodology, use, positive and negative points.MethodologyWe have searched 3 databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science) using the following keywords: [Research outcome* OR research output* OR bibliometric* OR scientometric* OR scientific production] AND [indicator* OR index* OR evaluation OR metrics]. We included articles presenting, discussing or evaluating indicators measuring the scientific production of an institution. The search was conducted by two independent authors using a standardised data extraction form. For each indicator we extracted its definition, calculation, its rationale and its positive and negative points. In order to reduce bias, data extraction and analysis was performed by two independent authors.FindingsWe included 76 articles. A total of 57 indicators were identified. We have classified those indicators into 6 categories: 9 indicators of research activity, 24 indicators of scientific production and impact, 5 indicators of collaboration, 7 indicators of industrial production, 4 indicators of dissemination, 8 indicators of health service impact. The most widely discussed and described is the h-index with 31 articles discussing it.DiscussionThe majority of indicators found are bibliometric indicators of scientific production and impact. Several indicators have been developed to improve the h-index. This indicator has also inspired the creation of two indicators to measure industrial production and collaboration. Several articles propose indicators measuring research impact without detailing a methodology for calculating them. Many bibliometric indicators identified have been created but have not been used or further discussed.

Project description:BackgroundIt is necessary to train a large number of healthcare workers (HCW) within a limited time to ensure adequate human resources during an epidemic. There remains an urgent need for best practices on development and implementation of training programmes.ObjectiveTo explore published literature in relation to training and education for viral epidemics as well as the effect of these interventions to inform training of HCW.Data sourcesSystematic searches in five databases performed between 1 January 2000 and 24 April 2020 for studies reporting on educational interventions in response to major viral epidemics.Study eligibility criteriaAll studies on educational interventions developed, implemented and evaluated in response to major global viral outbreaks from 2000 to 2020.ParticipantsHealthcare workers.InterventionsEducational or training interventions.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsDescriptive information were extracted and synthesised according to content, competency category, educational methodology, educational effects and level of educational outcome. Quality appraisal was performed using a criterion-based checklist.ResultsA total of 15 676 records were identified and 46 studies were included. Most studies were motivated by the Ebola virus outbreak with doctors and nurses as primary learners. Traditional didactic methods were commonly used to teach theoretical knowledge. Simulation-based training was used mainly for training of technical skills, such as donning and doffing of personal protective equipment. Evaluation of the interventions consisted mostly of surveys on learner satisfaction and confidence or tests of knowledge and skills. Only three studies investigated transfer to the clinical setting or effect on patient outcomes.Conclusions and implications of findingsThe included studies describe important educational experiences from past epidemics with a variety of educational content, design and modes of delivery. High-level educational evidence is limited. Evidence-based and standardised training programmes that are easily adapted locally are recommended in preparation for future outbreaks.

Project description:BackgroundWorkplace violence (WPV) is highly prevalent in the health sector and remains a major occupational issue causing significant harm, ranging from bodily and psychological harm to death. Female healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of WPV.ObjectivesIdentify risk factors of WPV among different professional categories of female HCWs.Data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science, along with their references lists January 2010 and March 2022.Eligibility criteriaEnglish language observational studies focusing on WPV among HCWs evaluating the risk factors, impacts and consequences of WPV in female HCWs.MethodRisk of bias was assessed for all studies by Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists. We estimated the pooled prevalence of WPV and the associated 95% CI using a random-effects meta-analysis model. We then described the associated factors and effects of WPV.Results28 reviewed studies (24 quantitative, 4 qualitative and 1 mixed-method) from 20 countries were selected. From the available results of 16 studies, the pooled prevalence of WPV was estimated at 45.0% (95% CI 32% to 58%). Types of violence included verbal abuse, verbal threats, physical assaults, sexual harassment, mobbing, bullying and discrimination. Perpetrators were patients, patients' relatives, colleagues and supervisors. Nurses were the most studied HCWs category. WPV was found to affect both mental and physical health. Age, marital status, lower occupational position, substance abuse, shorter work experience and low support at work were the main socio-demographic and organisational factors associated with higher risk of WPV.ConclusionWPV prevalence is high among female HCWs, warranting a multilevel intervention approach to address and mitigate its impact. This approach should include targeted policies and individual-level strategies to create a safer work environment and prevent adverse effects on both HCWs and the broader healthcare system. Further research is needed to better document WPV in categories of HCWs other than nurses.Prospero registration numberCRD42022329574.