Lisa Newington1,2, Mary Wells3,4, Adine Adonis3, Lee Bolton3,4, Layla Bolton Saghdaoui3,4, Margaret Coffey3,4, Jennifer Crow3, Olga Fadeeva Costa3,4, Catherine Hughes3, Matthew Savage3, Lillie Shahabi3,5, Caroline M Alexander3,4. 1. Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Education Centre, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK. l.newington@imperial.ac.uk. 2. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. l.newington@imperial.ac.uk. 3. Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Education Centre, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK. 4. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. 5. Department of Brain Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Allied health professions; Clinical academics; Midwifery; Nursing; Research impact; Systematic review; Thematic synthesis
Authors: Shannon Munro; Cristina C Hendrix; Linda J Cowan; Catherine Battaglia; Virginia D Wilder; Jill E Bormann; Constance R Uphold; Sheila Cox Sullivan Journal: Nurs Outlook Date: 2018-07-11 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Nikki L Hill; Andrea Yevchak; Ann M Kolanowski; Janice Penrod; Paula F Milone-Nuzzo; Amy M Sawyer; Bonnie Metzger; Barbara Therrien Journal: J Nurs Educ Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 1.726