Evidence mapPaperPMID 33926441Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2021

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

Lisa Newington, Mary Wells, Adine Adonis, Lee Bolton, Layla Bolton Saghdaoui, Margaret Coffey, Jennifer Crow, Olga Fadeeva Costa, Catherine Hughes, Matthew Savage and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Lisa NewingtonImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Education Centre, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK. l.newington@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6954-2981
Mary WellsImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Education Centre, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5789-2773
Adine AdonisImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Education Centre, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5372-8025
Lee BoltonImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Education Centre, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7104-9376
Layla Bolton SaghdaouiImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Education Centre, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1229-773X
Margaret CoffeyImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Education Centre, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8898-3432
Jennifer CrowImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Education Centre, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4692-1799
Olga Fadeeva CostaImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Education Centre, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0319-5045
Catherine HughesImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Education Centre, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK.
Matthew SavageImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Education Centre, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK.
Lillie ShahabiImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Education Centre, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5268-0771
Caroline M AlexanderImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Education Centre, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1816-8939

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere 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.

methodsTen 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.

resultsOf 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.

conclusionsSeveral 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.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelOrganizationsDelivery of Health CareHumansAllied health professionsClinical academicsMidwiferyNursingResearch impactSystematic reviewThematic synthesis

Identifiers

PMID33926441
PMCPMC8082861

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.