Past, Present and Future of Respiratory Research: A Survey of Canadian Health Care Professionals

Nonoyama, Mika; Mathur, Sunita; Herbert, Rosemary; Jenkins, H. M. L.; Lobchuk, Michelle; McEvoy, Michelle

doi:10.1155/2015/968450

Cited by 8 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This group felt that lack of mentorship and institutional support were signi cantly more impactful than those that were happy with their current research involvement (Figure 1A). The data agrees with a survey of Canadian respiratory workers, which suggested that lack of mentorship was a more important barrier for those not involved in research when compared to those actively engaged in research (12). Clinicians and non-clinicians ranked barriers to research participation relatively equally (Figure 1A), with more than 85% of participants selecting managing competing activities, lack of time, funding and infrastructure as a barrier.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Study participants with clinical responsibilities were signi cantly less con dent than non-clinicians in research skills, with the largest disparity being in applying for research funding and publishing results (Figure 1B). Previous studies have also suggested that this lack of con dence could be a barrier to participating in interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly with colleagues who are more research focussed (9,12). Clinicians and non-clinicians generally agreed on the bene ts and barriers to interdisciplinary collaboration (Figure 2A); with 80% identifying schedule incompatibility, lack of funding, identifying interested collaborators and lack of shared infrastructure as a moderate or major barrier.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…We provided participants with a list of barriers to research participation and interdisciplinary collaboration identi ed in previous studies (8,12) and asked them to rate the impact of each barrier with the following Likert Scale: Not a barrier (0), Moderate Barrier (1), Major Barrier (2). Clinical care providers were asked about barriers to collaborating with non-clinical care providers and vice versa.…”

Section: Survey Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Barriers to Translational Research in Windsor Ontario: A Survey of Clinical Care Providers and Health Researchers

Senecal

Metcalfe

Wilson

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTranslational 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. While these have been the subject of several studies, the research community of Windsor-Essex lacks the large tertiary institution typical of the communities that are the usually the subject of this research. 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. MethodsUsing 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, 54% of those surveyed were unhappy with their research involvement and these individuals were 9% more likely to perceive research as important for their career progression (p=0.046). ConclusionsThis 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Survey Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Barriers to Translational Research in Windsor Ontario: A Survey of Clinical Care Providers and Health Researchers

Senecal

Metcalfe

Wilson

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the main limitations of this study was the answering rate of 45.31%, which, despite matching with the ones found in the literature [18,[44][45][46][47][48], may not be representative of the whole wide world. Another limitation was the physiotherapists' questioning through a multiple choice and not through an open answer questionnaire.…”

Section: Factors That Influence In the Choice Of Therapeutic Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 68%

Use of lung expansion techniques on drained and non-drained pleural effusion: survey with 232 physiotherapists

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Techniques for lung expansion seem to benefit patients with drained and undrained pleural effusion, but there is a lack of evidence to indicate which technique is best in each situation. Currently, the therapeutic choices of respiratory physiotherapists serving this population are not known. Objective: To know which lung expansion techniques are chosen by chest physiotherapists who assist patients with drained and non-drained pleural effusion. Method: Through the announcement of the Federal Council, 232 physiotherapists who work in hospitals in Brazil were questioned about which techniques they apply to patients with drained and non-drained effusion. Results: Initially, 512 were questioned but 232 (45.3%) answered. The physiotherapists associate more than one technique of lung expansion in both types of patients, besides walking. Deep breathing is the most used technique in patients with drained (92%) and non-drained (77%) pleural effusion. Positive pressure exercises in the airways are chosen by 60% of the physiotherapists to treat patients with drained pleural effusion and by 34% to treat patients with non-drained pleural effusion. Yet the incentive spirometry are used with 66% of patients with drained pleural effusion and 42% with non-drained ones. Conclusion: Deep breathing is the most applied lung expansion technique in the treatment of patients with drained and non-drained pleural effusion by chest physiotherapists. In addition, there is association between greatest degree and time of professional performance and the chosen techniques.

show abstract

“…Similarily, Nonoyama [18] used the WReN Spider to measure experience plus interest in up-skilling in each of the Spider limbs in respiratory Health Professionals. The questionnaire consisted of closed ended questions, but open-ended questions were used to collect additional comments.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proliferation of the WReN spider, an instrument to measure health professionals’ experience of research: a bibliographic study

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In 1997 the “Wessex Research Network (WReN) Spider” was developed and validated to assess the research experience of general practice based researchers. This bibliometric study traces the use and development of this instrument over 15 years. Methods We performed a bibliographic search to identify all the citations of the original article since 2002. Results Thirty one relevant papers were found. Publications were classified according to whether they used ( N = 18) or cited ( N = 13) the WReN Spider. The majority of these papers came from Australia (N = 18) and 10 papers focussed on the research training of Allied Health Professionals. The WReN Spider was used in 12 studies to assess baseline experience before a training intervention or to compare before and after training scores. The WReN Spider was often ( N = 9) modified to additionally assess interest, confidence or interest in up-skilling in each of its 10 limbs. It was also often ( N = 14) used in tandem with open ended questions to gain a more detailed understanding of people’s research skills, or with additional questions focussing on the research context, culture and team. None of the papers confirmed the validation of the WReN Spider, although it was applied in contexts that differed from the one in which it was developed. Conclusions The WReN Spider continues to be used to measure the research experience of health care practitioners, but it is frequently enhanced with other questions to look at the wider issues of research success, including collaborators, resource and environment.

show abstract

Past, Present and Future of Respiratory Research: A Survey of Canadian Health Care Professionals

Cited by 8 publications

References 13 publications

Barriers to Translational Research in Windsor Ontario: A Survey of Clinical Care Providers and Health Researchers

Barriers to Translational Research in Windsor Ontario: A Survey of Clinical Care Providers and Health Researchers

Use of lung expansion techniques on drained and non-drained pleural effusion: survey with 232 physiotherapists

Proliferation of the WReN spider, an instrument to measure health professionals’ experience of research: a bibliographic study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About