ArticleBMC medical education2016
Determinants of research engagement in academic obstetrics and gynaecology.
Article in BMC medical education, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Research utilization process model: A cyclical, spiral, and developmental process to provide conclusive research knowledge in health professions education.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo identify the determinants of research engagement among faculty in an academic department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
methodsAll members of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of British Columbia were mailed an online version of the Edmonton Research Orientation Survey (EROS) in 2011 and in 2014. High scores on overall research engagement and on each of the 4 subscales, namely, value of research, value of innovation, research involvement and research utilization/evidence-based practice were quantified. Analyses were carried out on both surveys combined and on the 2014 survey separately. Logistic regression was used to identify determinants of high levels of research engagement.
resultsThe overall response rate was 37% (130 responses; 54 respondents in 2011 and 76 respondents in 2014). The average EROS score was 140 (range 54 to 184) and 35% of respondents had a score ≥150. Significant determinants of positive research engagement based on the overall EROS scale included being paid for research work (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 22.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.47-197.7) and carrying out research during unpaid hours (AOR 6.41, 95% CI 1.97-20.9). Age <50 years (AOR 11.0, 95% CI 1.35-89.9) and clinical experience <20 years (AOR 19.7, 95% CI 2.18-178.8) were positively associated, while journal reading during unpaid hours (AOR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07-0.62) was negatively associated with specific EROS subscales.
conclusionsIn a setting with a positive research orientation, research engagement among the faculty was associated with paid research time, research work and journal reading during unpaid hours and more recent entry into clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.