Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34493260›Full record

ReviewBMC health services research2021

Recent research into healthcare professions regulation: a rapid evidence assessment.

Julie Browne, Alison Bullock, Chiara Poletti, Dorottya Cserző

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors.

Julie BrowneCardiff University, Cardiff Unit for Research and Evaluation in Medical and Dental Education (CUREMeDE), 10/12 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BG, UK. brownej1@cardiff.ac.uk.
Alison BullockCardiff University, Cardiff Unit for Research and Evaluation in Medical and Dental Education (CUREMeDE), 10/12 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BG, UK.
Chiara PolettiCardiff University, Cardiff Unit for Research and Evaluation in Medical and Dental Education (CUREMeDE), 10/12 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BG, UK.
Dorottya CserzőCardiff University, Cardiff Unit for Research and Evaluation in Medical and Dental Education (CUREMeDE), 10/12 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BG, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsOver the last decade, regulators have taken significant steps towards tackling perceptions that regulatory systems are burdensome. There has been much international research activity in the regulation of health and care professionals. This article reports a review of studies on health professions regulation between January 2011 and March 2020. Its chief object was to provide robust and up-to-date evidence to assist regulators in policy development and implementation. The main objectives of this study were to: 1. Identify and retrieve research in the field of health and care professions regulation in English since 2011; 2. Evaluate the published research, exploring its utility to regulators and practitioners, and drawing out any key messages; 3. Draw conclusions concerning the scope and limitations of the research literature and identify areas for further research.

methodsWe undertook a rapid evidence assessment (REA) of the international literature on health and care professions regulation, including reviewing ten UK regulators' websites to identify issues of concern and strategic priorities. We retrieved 3833 references, using a four-stage screening process to select the 81 most relevant.

resultsResults are reported within six key themes: harm prevention and patient safety; fitness to practise; quality assurance of education and training; registration including maintenance of registers; guidelines and standards and relations with regulatory bodies.

conclusionsRegulation of professionals in health and care is comparatively undeveloped as a field of academic study. Consequently, the published evidence is diffuse and small-scale. Most work presents relatively weak data of low relevance to regulators, mainly reporting or describing the current position. Few studies are able to show the impact of regulation or demonstrate a causal link between regulation and its effects. To inform their research and policy agendas health and social care regulators need to commission, interpret and apply the scholarly literature more effectively; academics need to engage with regulators to ensure that their research provides high-quality evidence with practical relevance to the regulators' agendas. Further study is needed to explore how effective academic collaborations between regulators and researchers may be created and sustained.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareResearch PersonnelHumansProhibitinsProhibitinsFitness to practiseGuidelinesPatient safetyQuality assuranceRapid evidence assessmentRegistrationRegulationReviewStandards

Identifiers

PMID34493260
PMCPMC8425088

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.