Professional identity in clinician-scientists: brokers between care and science

Abstract

ContextDespite increasing numbers of publications, science often fails to significantly improve patient care. Clinician‐scientists, professionals who combine care and research activities, play an important role in helping to solve this problem. However, despite the ascribed advantages of connecting scientific knowledge and inquiry with health care, clinician‐scientists are scarce, especially amongst non‐physicians. The education of clinician‐scientists can be complex because they must form professional identities at the intersection of care and research. The successful education of clinician‐scientists requires insight into how these professionals view their professional identity and how they combine distinct practices.ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate how recently trained nurse‐ and physiotherapist‐scientists perceive their professional identities and experience the crossing of boundaries between care and research.MethodsSemi‐structured interviews were conducted with 14 nurse‐ and physiotherapist‐scientists at 1 year after they had completed MSc research training. Interviews were thematically analysed using insights from the theoretical frameworks of dialogical self theory and boundary crossing.ResultsAfter research training, the initial professional identity, of clinician, remained important for novice clinician‐scientists, whereas the scientist identity was experienced as additional and complementary. A meta‐identity as broker, referred to as a ‘bridge builder’, seemed to mediate competing demands or tensions between the two positions. Obtaining and maintaining a dual work position were experienced as logistically demanding; nevertheless, it was considered beneficial for crossing the boundaries between care and research because it led to reflection on the health profession, knowledge integration, inquiry and innovation in care, improved data collection, and research with a focus on clinical applicability.ConclusionsNovice clinician‐scientists experience dual professional identities as care providers and scientists. The meta‐position of being a broker who connects care and research is seen as core to the unique clinician‐scientist identity. To develop this role, identity formation and boundary‐crossing competencies merit explicit attention within clinician‐scientist programmes.

Perceptions of interprofessional collaboration in education of dentists and dental hygienists and the impact on dental practice in the Netherlands: A qualitative study

“…The literature on crossing boundaries may provide a theoretical framework for developing interprofessional education programmes that provide these skills. 23 The CIEP is taken in the final year of study in both dental educational training programmes, so only in the last year of their education do dental students and dental hygienist students learn how to treat a patient in interprofessional collaboration and share responsibility for joint patient groups. If interprofessional education is offered earlier in the curriculum, we expect that dentists may gain a clearer understanding of what falls within the field of expertise of dental hygienists and vice versa.…”

Research Needs for Bipolar Disorder From Clinicians’ Perspectives: Narrowing the Research–Practice Gap

“…According to recent literature, researcher-clinicians can play this intermediary role for several reasons. First, they have the ability to translate research findings into clinical practice (Gunasekaran, Krishnadevarajan, & Barry Lawrence, 2017;Kluijtmans et al, 2017;Roberts, Fischhoff, Sakowski, & Feldman, 2012;van Oostveen, Goedhart, Francke, & Vermeulen, 2017). In this role, one could argue that researcher-clinicians could also play a role in educating clinicians about current research, to decrease an implementation gap.…”

“…Therefore, we argue that one step into bridging the research-practice gap is to unravel relevant research needs according to clinicians and the overlap with patients' research needs. Moreover, clinicians, and in particular researcher-clinicians, could play an intermediary role between research and practice and potentially narrow the gap between the two (Kluijtmans, de Haan, Akkerman, & van Tartwijk, 2017). They are close to patients and hence in a good position to understand patients' needs and preferences.…”

Response to: ‘Professional identity in clinician-scientists: brokers between care and science’

“…In their study of clinician-scientists 1 year beyond training, Kluijtmans, de Haan, Akkerman and van Tartwijk examined dual professional formation. 1 Although I appreciate the concept of building an understanding of being a lifelong 'bridge' between science and care, this does not require the person to continue to try to accomplish both roles. As a physician, it is extremely challenging to work in two different worlds and be masterful in both, but it is very effective working in concert with one another.…”