Background Health-care environments influence service delivery; approaches need to be more wholistic and culturally competent requiring effective interagency collaboration to bridge traditional Indigenous and mainstream health services. Despite considerable research on collaboration, the concept remains misunderstood, at worst, and formative, at best. Within the nexus of these two diverse health services, there is limited information on how collaborations could be created and sustained effectively. Purpose To explore the perspectives/experiences of collaboration of select Saskatchewan health professionals practicing across these diverse services to understand the concept from their perspectives. Methods This qualitative study explored collaboration through observation and interviews to elicit perspectives (two-eyed seeing) of health professionals working within the context of a traditional-mainstream health services partnership. Results Individual- and system-level factors and accountabilities are needed for successful cross-cultural collaboration and can be enabled by embedding the virtues of Indigenous and values of mainstream health services along with building and maintaining relationships, valuing difference, creating supportive environments and wholistic approaches, having the right people at the table, and making a change for impactful outcomes. Conclusion Findings support the need for implementing contextually relevant collaborative practice models for productive, wholistic health services. Two-eyed seeing provides the ability to capture and catalyze the tremendous value and strengths of both worlds, potentiating complementary aspects to meet the needs of clients and communities.
There have been increasing calls in healthcare for the development of a more robust evidence base. Facilitating research activity amongst clinicians is the primary means of achieving this, although engagement is often undermined by a number of barriers and resistors. This paper identifies and explores the forms of resistance which graduates from three postgraduate healthcare education programmes have encountered on their return to practice. This study employed a collective case study approach and gathered data from 29 semi structured interviews. Thematic analysis revealed a range of challenges, both anticipated and unexpected, which related to research engagement. Four forms of resistance were subsequently identified. These included: managerial, medical, organisational and interprofessional. In exploring these forms of resistance it became apparent that barriers to research engagement are not only contextually determined, but also rooted in enduring social perceptions, role insecurity and professional protectionism. The study also found that whilst research engagement was rhetorically supported, organisations offer very little tangible assistance to potential clinical researchers. A particular type of education has proved manifestly disruptive in this instance, and this disruption will need to be recognised as curricula are adjusted and developed. Further exploring the identified miscommunication between education and practice will also be of particular value to both fields.
Providing training opportunities to develop research skills for clinical staff has been prioritised in response to the need for improving the evidence base underpinning the delivery of care. By exploring the experiences of a number of former participants of a multidisciplinary postgraduate research course, this article explores the factors that have enabled and impeded staff to translate their learnt research skills into clinical practice. Adopting an exploratory case study approach, 16 interviews with 5 cohorts of Masters by Research in Clinical Practice (MResCP) graduates were undertaken. The interviews explored graduates' course experiences and their subsequent attempts to undertake clinical research. Analysis of the data indicated that although participants valued their interactions with colleagues from different professions and felt they gained useful research skills/knowledge, upon returning to clinical practice, they encountered a number of barriers which restricted their ability to apply their research expertise. Professional isolation, issues of hierarchy, and a lack of organisational support were key to limiting their ability to undertake clinical research. Further work is needed to explore in more depth how (i) these barriers can be overcome and (ii) how taught collaborative research skills can be more effectively translated into practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.