Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35027413›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Ten years of NIHR research training: perceptions of the programmes: a qualitative interview study.

Paula Burkinshaw, Louise D Bryant, Caroline Magee, Peter Thompson, Lisa Ann Cotterill, Matthew R Mulvey, Jenny Hewison

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Paula BurkinshawLeeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Louise D BryantLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1972-7395
Caroline MageeExecutive Team, NIHR Academy, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0352-7142
Peter ThompsonExecutive Team, NIHR Academy, Leeds, UK.
Lisa Ann CotterillExecutive Team, NIHR Academy, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4083-3483
Matthew R MulveyLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK M.R.Mulvey@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6357-3848
Jenny HewisonLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) training programmes were created to build and sustain research capacity in healthcare. Following the training programme 10-year strategic review, this qualitative study aimed to deepen understanding of facilitators and barriers for those progressing through NIHR-supported research careers.

designSemistructured qualitative study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Telephone interviews conducted between May and August 2017 were digitally recorded, transcribed and analysed using Framework Approach.

settingUK National Health Service (NHS) Trusts, university medical schools, District General Hospitals, Integrated Academic Training Programme centres and Research Design Services across the North East, North West, South East and South West of England, London and the Midlands.

participantsFourteen women and eight men, of whom, 14 were previous or current NIHR personal awardees (seven doctors and seven allied health professionals (AHPs) or nurses) and eight were managers (staff within clinical or university training-related roles).

results(1) NIHR awards were viewed as transformative for research careers; (2) however, there were perceptions of a biased 'playing field'. (3) Inequalities were perceived for AHPs and nurses, those outside of established research institutes and those in 'unfashionable' specialisms. (4) While support for NIHR awards contributed to a healthy research culture, (5) short-term awards were perceived as a barrier to continuing an independent research career.

conclusionsParticipants perceived many strengths of the NIHR training programmes in terms of developing individual careers and research capacity. Areas in which improvement could enhance the ability to attract, develop and retain researcher were identified. Our findings are of relevance to schemes in other countries, where healthcare researchers experience similar challenges. Further work is needed to overcome barriers and ensure equity of access to, and success within, clinical research training schemes to sustain the research workforce needed to address future global health challenges.

Indexed as

PhysiciansState MedicineAllied Health PersonnelFemaleHumansMaleQualitative ResearchResearch Personneleducation & training (see medical education & training)epidemiologymedical education & training

Identifiers

PMID35027413
PMCPMC8762125

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.