Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32430883›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2020

A survey of the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy members' research involvement, and associated enablers and barriers.

Derek Stewart, Vibhu Paudyal, Cathal Cadogan, Ankie Hazen, Betul Okuyan, Monika Lutters, Martin Henman, Daniella Fialová

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Editorial.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2021
    Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

Derek StewartCollege of Pharmacy, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar. d.stewart@qu.edu.qa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7360-8592
Vibhu PaudyalSchool of Pharmacy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Cathal CadoganSchool of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Ankie HazenCentre for Pharmacy Postgraduate Education, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Betul OkuyanMarmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Monika LuttersKantonsspital Baden, Baden, Switzerland.
Martin HenmanThe School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Daniella FialováCharles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Building research capacity of European Society of Clinical Pharmacy (ESCP) members aligns to the organisation's aim of advancing research. Objective To determine members' aspirations and needs in research training and practice, and to explore ways in which ESCP could provide support. Setting ESCP's international membership. Method Cross-sectional survey of members in 2018, followed by focus groups with samples of respondents attending an ESCP symposium. Survey items were: research activities; interests, experience and confidence; and Likert statements on research conduct. Principal component analysis (PCA) clustering of Likert statements from a previous study was used, with scores for each component calculated. Focus groups discussed barriers to research and how ESCP could provide support. Data analysis involved collating and comparing all themes. Main outcome measures Research interest, experience and confidence; attitudinal items; barriers to research; ESCP support. Results The response rate was 16.7% (83/499), with 89.2% (n = 74) involved in research and 79.5% (n = 66) publishing research in the preceding 2 years. While overwhelmingly positive, responses were more positive for research interest than experience or confidence. PCA component scores (support/opportunities, motivation/outcomes, and roles/characteristics) were positive. Thirteen members participated in focus groups, identifying barriers of: insufficient collaboration; lack of knowledge, skills, training; unsupportive environment; insufficient time; and limited resources. ESCP could support through mentorship, collaboration, education and funding. Conclusion Study participants were highly active, interested, experienced, confident and positive regarding research. There is an opportunity for ESCP to harness these activities and provide support in the form of mentoring, education and training, and facilitating collaboration.

Indexed as

Capacity BuildingAdultCooperative BehaviorCross-Sectional StudiesEuropeFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMentorsMiddle AgedPharmacy ResearchPrincipal Component AnalysisSocieties, PharmaceuticalSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultBarriersClinical pharmacyEnablersEuropean Society of Clinical PharmacyResearch

Identifiers

PMID32430883
PMCPMC7476984

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.