Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36694193›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Describing the evidence-base for research engagement by health care providers and health care organisations: a scoping review.

Sze Lin Yoong, Katarzyna Bolsewicz, Kathryn Reilly, Christopher Williams, Luke Wolfenden, Alice Grady, Melanie Kingsland, Meghan Finch, John Wiggers

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sze Lin YoongGlobal Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia. s.yoong@deakin.edu.au.
Katarzyna BolsewiczHunter New England Population Health, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Kathryn ReillyHunter New England Population Health, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Christopher WilliamsHunter New England Population Health, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Luke WolfendenHunter New England Population Health, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Alice GradyHunter New England Population Health, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Melanie KingslandHunter New England Population Health, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Meghan FinchSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
John WiggersHunter New England Population Health, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
University of Newcastle Australia · AUHunter Medical Research Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHaving a research-engaged health and medical workforce is associated with improvements in clinical outcomes for patients. As such, there has been significant government investment internationally to support health care organisations and services to increase staff engagement with research.

objectivesThis scoping review sought to provide an overview of the literature describing strategies employed to increase research engagement by health care providers and organisations, and to undertake a qualitative analysis to generate a list of research engagement strategies.

methodsA scoping review using systematic search strategies was undertaken to locate peer-review publications and grey literature related to research engagement by health care providers and organisations. Research engagement was defined as a 'deliberate set of intellectual and practical activities undertaken by health care staff and organisations to conduct research'. A database search of electronic records was performed with no limit on publication date. Publications were included regardless of study type (excluding systematic reviews) and categorised as either databased (presenting data or new analysis of existing data) and non-databased (no new data or analyses). Databased publications were further classified according to study type, study design and setting. A qualitative synthesis using a Framework Approach was undertaken with all studies that described a strategy to improve research engagement.

resultsA total of 152 publications were included in this study with 54% categorised as non-databased. Of the databased articles, the majority (72%) were descriptive studies describing prevalence of correlates of research engagement, 17 (25%) described intervention studies where only two were controlled studies. The following research engagement strategies were identified: i) dual skilled team/staff, ii) resources or physical infrastructure, iii) incentives, iv) leadership support of research, v) education/training, vi) networks, vii) forming partnerships or collaborations and viii) overall leadership structure of entity.

conclusionsThe literature on research engagement is primarily opinion-based and descriptive in nature. To provide the evidence needed to inform strategies, this needs to progress beyond descriptive to more rigorous well-designed intervention research.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHumansPopulation GroupsHealth care providersResearch capacity buildingResearch engagement

Identifiers

PMID36694193
PMCPMC9872336
OpenAlexW4317821531

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.