Dataset Information

Barriers to translational research in Windsor Ontario: a survey of clinical care providers and health researchers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Translational research is an ideology focussed on streamlining the transition of novel research into clinical practice to ultimately benefit populations. Central to this approach is overcoming barriers to research involvement and interdisciplinary collaboration. Identifying barriers has been the subject of several studies focused on communities with large academic hospitals. The Windsor-Essex region is currently built around community hospitals which have less of an emphasis on research, employ fewer physicians holding academic appointments and generally do not provide incentivised time for research and training. In this study, we surveyed clinicians and researchers working in Windsor-Essex to gain insight into barriers to translational research important to those working in smaller sized, community-based research networks.

Methods

Using an anonymous close-ended Qualtrics survey distributed via email, we surveyed faculty members from The University of Windsor and clinical care providers from Windsor-Essex (n = 68). This included 24 physicians, 14 allied health professionals, and 30 non-clinician researchers.

Results

Managing competing interests, lack of time, funding, infrastructure, and networks were identified by greater than 75% of participants as barriers to research involvement. 62% of physicians identified the lack of permanent post-graduate medical trainees as a barrier. Clinicians were consistently less experienced in research skills compared to others; particularly in publishing results and applying for funding (p < 0.001). Schedule incompatibility, funding issues and identifying interested collaborators with overlapping interests were identified as barriers to interdisciplinary collaboration by 80% of participants. Moreover, 46% of those surveyed were unhappy with their research involvement and these individuals were 13% more likely to perceive research as important for their career progression (p = 0.244).

Conclusions

This study identifies several important barriers to translational research in Windsor-Essex and suggests that many motivated researchers are unhappy with their current involvement. These results will inform decision making in the research community of Windsor-Essex and provides insight for communities of similar size and research capacity. Ultimately, enabling the translation of clinical research in all communities is required to ensure equitable access to cutting edge care.

SUBMITTER: Senecal JB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8626997 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe acceptance of digital health technologies to support patient care for various clinical conditions among primary care providers and staff has not been explored.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to explore the extent of potential differences between major groups of providers and staff in primary care, including behavioral health consultants (BHCs; eg, psychologists, social workers, and counselors), primary care providers (PCPs; eg, physicians and nurse practitioners), and nurses (registered nurses and licensed practical nurses) in the acceptance of various health technologies (ie, mobile apps, wearables, live video, phone, email, instant chats, text messages, social media, and patient portals) to support patient care across a variety of clinical situations.MethodsWe surveyed 151 providers (51 BHCs, 52 PCPs, and 48 nurses) embedded in primary care clinics across the United States who volunteered to respond to a web-based survey distributed in December 2020 by a large health care market research company. Respondents indicated the technologies they consider appropriate to support patients' health care needs across the following clinical contexts: acute and chronic disease, medication management, health-promoting behaviors, sleep, substance use, and common and serious mental health conditions. We used descriptive statistics to summarize the distribution of demographic characteristics by provider type. We used contingency tables to compile summaries of the proportion of provider types endorsing each technology within and across clinical contexts. This study was exploratory in nature, with the intent to inform future research.ResultsMost of the respondents were from urban and suburban settings (125/151, 82.8%), with 12.6% (n=19) practicing in rural or frontier settings and 4.6% (n=7) practicing in rural-serving clinics. Respondents were dispersed across the United States, including the Northeast (31/151, 20.5%), Midwest (n=32, 21.2%), South (n=49, 32.5%), and West (n=39, 25.8%). The highest acceptance for technologies across clinical contexts was among BHCs (32/51, 63%) and PCPs (30/52, 58%) for live video and among nurses for mobile apps (30/48, 63%). A higher percentage of nurses accepted all other technologies relative to BHCs and PCPs. Similarly, relative to other groups, PCPs indicated lower levels of acceptance. Within clinical contexts, the highest acceptance rates were reported among 80% (41/51) of BHCs and 69% (36/52) of PCPs endorsing live video for common mental health conditions and 75% (36/48) of nurses endorsing mobile apps for health-promoting behaviors. The lowest acceptance across providers was for social media in the context of medication management (9.3% [14/151] endorsement across provider type).ConclusionsThe survey suggests potential differences in the way primary care clinicians and staff envision using technologies to support patient care. Future work must attend to reasons for differences in the acceptance of various technologies across providers and clinical contexts. Such an understanding will help inform appropriate implementation strategies to increase acceptability and gain greater adoption of appropriate technologies across conditions and patient populations.

Project description:Funding for research is under pressure to be accountable in terms of benefits and translation of research findings into practice and policy. Primary health care research has considerable potential to improve health care in a wide range of settings, but little is known about the extent to which these impacts actually occur. This study examines the impact of individual primary health care research projects on policy and practice from the perspective of Chief Investigators (CIs).The project used an online survey adapted from the Buxton and Hanney Payback Framework to collect information about the impacts that CIs expected and achieved from primary health care research projects funded by Australian national competitive grants.Chief Investigators (CIs) provided information about seventeen completed projects. While no CI expected their project to have an impact in every domain of the framework used in the survey, 76% achieved at least half the impacts they expected. Sixteen projects had published and/or presented their work, 10 projects included 11 doctorate awards in their research capacity domain. All CIs expected their research to lead to further research opportunities with 11 achieving this. Ten CIs achieved their expectation of providing information for policy making but only four reported their research had influenced policy making. However 11 CIs achieved their expectation of providing information for organizational decision making and eight reported their research had influenced organizational decision making.CIs reported that nationally funded primary health care research projects made an impact on knowledge production, staff development and further research, areas within the realm of influence of the research team and within the scope of awareness of the CIs. Some also made an impact on policy and organizational decision-making, and on localized clinical practice and service delivery. CIs reported few broader economic benefits from their research. Routine use of an instrument of this type would facilitate primary health care research funders' determination of the payback for funding of research in this sector.

Project description:BackgroundCancer cachexia is a severe complication of advanced malignancy, with few therapeutic options. To promote interprofessional care for cancer cachexia, healthcare providers' needs should be addressed in detail. This pre-planned subgroup analysis of the Global Educational Needs Evaluation: a systemic interprofessional study in cancer cachexia (GENESIS-CC) survey aimed to identify barriers to interprofessional care of cancer cachexia in Japan.MethodsA nationwide survey was electronically conducted for healthcare providers in oncological or general healthcare facilities from January to March 2021 in Japan. The Japanese Regional Advisory Board developed a barrier scoring system with 33 from the 58 original survey items to quantify six domains of barriers: (1) lack of confidence, (2) lack of knowledge, (3) barriers in personal practice, (4) barriers in perception, (5) barriers in team practice and (6) barriers in education. The largest possible barrier score was set at 100 points. We compared the scores by profession.ResultsA total of 1227 valid responses were obtained from 302 (24.6%) physicians, 252 (20.5%) pharmacists, 236 (19.2%) nurses, 218 (17.8%) dietitians, 193 (15.7%) rehabilitation therapists and 26 (2.0%) other professionals. Overall, 460 (37.5%) were not very or at all confident about cancer cachexia care, 791 (84.1%) agreed or strongly agreed that care was influenced by reimbursement availability and 774 (81.9%) did not have cancer cachexia as a mandatory curriculum. The largest mean barrier score (± standard deviation) was 63.7 ± 31.3 for education, followed by 55.6 ± 21.8 for team practice, 43.7 ± 32.5 for knowledge, 42.8 ± 17.7 for perception and 36.5 ± 16.7 for personal practice. There were statistically significant interprofessional differences in all domains (P < 0.05), especially for pharmacists and nurses with the highest or second highest scores in most domains.ConclusionsThere is a need to improve the educational system and team practices of cancer cachexia for most Japanese healthcare providers, especially pharmacists and nurses. Our study suggests the need to reform the mandatory educational curriculum and reimbursement system on cancer cachexia to promote interprofessional care for cancer cachexia in Japan.

Project description:BackgroundGaps continue to exist between research-based evidence and clinical practice. We surveyed health care providers in 10 low- and middle-income countries about their use of research-based evidence and examined factors that may facilitate or impede such use.MethodsWe surveyed 1499 health care providers practising in one of four areas relevant to the Millennium Development Goals (prevention of malaria, care of women seeking contraception, care of children with diarrhea and care of patients with tuberculosis) in each of China, Ghana, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Mexico, Pakistan, Senegal and Tanzania.ResultsThe proportion of respondents who reported that research was likely to change their clinical practice if performed and published in their own country (84.6% and 86.0% respectively) was higher than the proportion who reported the same about research and publications from their region (66.4% and 63.1%) or from high-income countries (55.8% and 55.5%). Respondents who were most likely to report that the use of research-based evidence led to changes in their practice included those who reported using clinical practice guidelines in paper format (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.28), using scientific journals from their own country in paper format (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.26-2.28), viewing the quality of research performed in their country as above average or excellent (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.16-3.22); trusting systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.08-2.35); and having easy access to the Internet (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.19-3.02).InterpretationLocally conducted or published research has played an important role in changing the professional practice of health care providers surveyed in low- and middle-income countries. Increased investments in local research, or at least in locally adapted publications of research-based evidence from other settings, are therefore needed. Although access to the Internet was viewed as a significant factor in whether research-based evidence led to concrete changes in practice, few respondents reported having easy access to the Internet. Therefore, efforts to improve Internet access in clinical settings need to be accelerated.