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.

Impacts of clinical academic activity: qualitative interviews with healthcare managers and research-active nurses, midwives, allied health professionals and pharmacists

“…24 The research team comprised postdoctoral clinicians from nursing and physiotherapy disciplines with previous qualitative research experience. Qualitative semistructured 1:1 interviews were conducted using prepiloted topic guides which were informed by our systematic review of the literature 13 (online supplemental file 1). The COREQ checklist (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research) was used to guide reporting.…”

“…Our recent systematic review explored the impacts of NMAHPP clinical academic activity reported in the literature and used the VICTOR framework to categorise the identified impacts. 13 Across all categories, there were three recurring sub-themes: the challenges and benefits of balancing clinical and academic roles; creation and implementation of new evidence; and collaboration and networks. The first two of these subthemes were also reflected in the current study, suggesting that these are likely to be important features in developing clinical academic careers and areas where impact could be assessed.…”

Perspektiver på å gå fra praktisk arbeid i klinikken til forsker, og på å forske der en arbeider i praksis

“…Noen år etter ferdig PhD ble de konkurrerende krav fra akademi og klinikk for krevende og jeg valgte å gå over til akademiet på fulltid. Leder for forskere som kombinerer klinisk arbeide og forskning, og forskerne selve, opplever positive utfall for både pasienter og organisasjonen som: evidensbasert behandling, pasient involvering og attraktiv arbeidsplass for personalen (Newington et al, 2021). Det er et synkende antall personer som kontinuerlig arbeider i klinikk og i akademi samtidig, på grunn av de krav som det innebaerer for den enkelte (Bostwick, 2012;de Groot et al, 2020).…”

“…I dette smeltepunktet mellom det som vi kan og forstår og det en annen kan og forstår, er det ikke kun risiko for misforståelse, det er samtidig mulighet for kreativitet og samskapning av forskningsprosjekter som leder til holdbar forbedring. Når klinisk virksomt hos personell er involvert i forskning og vice versa det er det en rekke fordeler: økt klinisk relevans av forskningsspørsmål, tilgang til kliniske innstillinger for forskning, kliniske ekspertise og innsideperspektiv til forskningen, forskere som er klarert av deltakerne som kan oppmuntre til deltakelse, og å ha forskere som er motivert til å spre og anvende aktuelle funn og fortsette sin forpliktelse til de undersøkte (Barry et al, 2019;Barry et al, 2020;Hay-Smith et al, 2016;Newington et al, 2021).…”

“…Å kombinere forskning og praktisk arbeid gjør oss bedre i både forsker-og klinikerrollen og skaper positive synergier (Barry et al, 2019;Barry, Kuijer-Siebelink, Niewenhuis, & Scherpbier, 2020;de Groot et al, 2020;Katzka, 2017;van Oostveen, Goedhart, Francke, & Vermeulen, 2017). Samtidig er det en utfordring for profesjonelle som har begge rollene og skal balansere krav fra disse ulike arbeider (Bostwick, 2012;de Groot et al, 2020;Newington et al, 2021). Det er også forventninger som ser ulike ut, avhengig av fra hvilken side et forskningsprosjekt starter.…”