Research productivity following nursing research initiative grants

Munro, Shannon; Hendrix, Cristina C.; Cowan, Linda; Battaglia, Catherine; Wilder, Virginia D; Bormann, Jill E.; Uphold, Constance R.; Sullivan, Sheila Cox

doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2018.06.011

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Within the UK, the drive to increase the clinical academic workforce is supported by a targeted Health Education England/National Institute for Health Research funding stream specifically for these professions [9], and through fellowship funding from a number of national health charities. Similar schemes exist elsewhere [10][11][12][13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis exploring the impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine

Newington

Wells

Adonis

et al. 2021

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis exploring the impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine

Newington

Wells

Adonis

et al. 2021

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other reasons that may account for lack of funding and require further investigations can be the lack of proposals or poorly designed proposals, the grant review teams more likely to award other disciplines, or limited nurses’ training in attracting investments. When novice nurses have been given the opportunity to benefit from grant funding, their research trajectory production increased, including further research funding, peer‐reviewed publications, and participation on journal editorial boards and on grant review committees (Munro et al., ). Economic obstacles represent the most common problem faced by nursing researchers and reasons for the lack of funding need to be further investigated (Vedelø & Lomborg, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized Controlled Trials and Quasi‐Experimental Studies Published in Nursing Journals: Findings From a Scoping Review With Implications for Further Research

Gonella

Giulio²,

Palese

et al. 2019

Worldviews Ev Based Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Experimental studies are considered capable of generating substantial evidence; therefore, their production and diffusion are continuously encouraged. However, their trends as publication outputs in nursing journals have rarely been evaluated to date.Aims: To describe experimental study design features among the highest indexed nursing journals.Methods: A scoping review was performed by retrieving and analyzing experimental studies published between 2009 and 2016 in nursing journals with a 5-year impact factor >1.5 according to Thomson's Journal Citation Reports.Results: A total of 602 studies were reviewed and 340 (56%) were included; in all, 298/340 (87.6%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 37/340 (10.9%) pilot studies. The publication trend exhibited a fluctuating pattern with a slight decrease over time (from 54 studies in 2009 to 32 in 2016). Researchers working in Asia and Europe have published more frequently in the selected journals. Published studies most often involved oncological (n = 69, 20%), surgical (n = 41, 12%), and elderly patients (n = 38, 11%). Educational and supportive (n = 119, 35%) interventions were mainly tested for effectiveness. Approximately half of studies enrolled <100 patients, and only two-thirds had included an a priori sample size calculation. Less than one quarter (n = 76) of the research teams were multiprofessional, and 70% of studies were funded, generally, by public institutions.Linking Evidence to Action: A broad range of research questions has been investigated to date by using experimental study designs. However, study methods and multidisciplinary collaborations must be enhanced with the intent of producing large-scale and methodologically sound studies. Furthermore, reasons for limited funding and, particularly, the lack of support from private funding should be further investigated.

show abstract

“…3 It is also essential to leverage collaboration with academic affiliations because these relationships can provide added mentor pool and research resources. 7,14,16,17 Limitations There were several limitations that may impact the generalizability of our findings. This is a cross-sectional survey, and data were self-reported.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…1,3,4 Previous VHA efforts to support nurse researchers have led to positive and measurable outcomes in research productivity and retention of nurse researchers within VHA. 16 Systematic strategies are needed to connect nurse scientists to VHA research centers located within their region, if none is available in their local facility, to help promote more nurse-led research and funding opportunities. The Office of Nursing Services and NRFAC are piloting a mentoring program to support newly hired nurse scientists, and results will be used to guide the implementation across the VHA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Roles, Functions, and Work Experiences of Nurse Scientists in the Veterans Health Administration

Mu,

Guzman-Clark,

Etchin

et al. 2024

JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE The aim of this project was to describe nurse scientists' roles, functions, and work experiences in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). BACKGROUND Nurse scientists play a critical role in shaping the culture of clinical inquiry and closing the gap between knowledge and practice. METHODS A cross-sectional survey was used to collect information on sociodemographics, workload, research, clinical practice, education, and time/effort. Data were examined using descriptive statistics and χ2 analyses. RESULTS One hundred forty-four nurse scientists completed the survey. These nurse scientists serve dynamic and critical roles in conducting research, implementing evidence-based practice, and reforming policy. Research effort was limited due to workload and infrastructure constraints. Better research infrastructure was associated with higher research productivity and funding. CONCLUSIONS This survey highlights the needs and challenges nurse scientists experience in conducting research and advancing VHA's mission. Given the national shortage of PhD-prepared nurses, long-term strategies are needed to attract, hire, and retain nurse scientists in healthcare systems.

show abstract

Research productivity following nursing research initiative grants

Cited by 9 publications

References 3 publications

A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis exploring the impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine

A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis exploring the impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine

Randomized Controlled Trials and Quasi‐Experimental Studies Published in Nursing Journals: Findings From a Scoping Review With Implications for Further Research

Exploring the Roles, Functions, and Work Experiences of Nurse Scientists in the Veterans Health Administration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About