ArticleBMJ open2022
Research engagement by British early-career practitioners in nephrology: a multidisciplinary survey.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Research Capacity and Engagement Drivers Among Hospital Pharmacy Professionals: A Mixed Methods Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- The UK kidney association 2025 academic census: a national survey to identify workforce improvements.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Top 5 barriers in cardiac arrest research as perceived by international early career researchers - A consensus study.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo establish barriers and motivators underlying research engagement among early-career practitioners in nephrology across the UK, in order to guide potential interventions to enhance research involvement in renal units.
designCross-sectional online survey employing a range of free-text, Likert scale and binomial/multiple-choice responses, distributed via mailing lists and social media. Topics covered research experience, research involvement and barriers, impact of COVID-19 and strategies to improve research engagement. Thematic analysis was used to assess free-text responses.
settingRenal units throughout the UK.
participantsNon-consultant healthcare staff self-identifying as working in nephrology were included (n=211), with responses from non-UK respondents or consultant nephrologists excluded (n=12).
resultsResponses were received from across the multidisciplinary team (physicians (n=83) and nurses (n=83)) and other allied health professionals (n=45). Most were aware of ongoing local research, but under half of them were actively involved. Multivariate analysis indicated employment as a physician, protected time for research activity and provision of appropriate training were associated with greater research experience and output. There was general enthusiasm to undertake research, but perceived barriers included insufficient staffing, lack of time, funding and encouragement. COVID-19 was felt to have further impacted negatively upon opportunities. Among the suggested strategies to promote engagement, mentorship and an online research resource were felt to be of most interest.
conclusionsIn the first survey of this type in nephrology, we demonstrate differences across the multidisciplinary spectrum in perceived research experience and accessibility, which have been worsened by COVID-19. Our findings will guide strategies to broaden engagement in early-career practitioners and serve as a baseline to assess the impact of these interventions.
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.