Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37138350›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Development of a framework and research impact capture tool for nursing, midwifery, allied health professions, healthcare science, pharmacy and psychology (NMAHPPs).

Lisa Newington, Mary Wells, Samina Begum, Andy J Lavender, Sarah Markham, Oliver Tracy, Caroline M Alexander

Abstract read
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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Lisa NewingtonDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. l.newington@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6954-2981
Mary WellsDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5789-2773
Samina BegumPatient and Public Advisory Group Member, London, UK.
Andy J LavenderPatient and Public Advisory Group Member, London, UK.
Sarah MarkhamPatient and Public Advisory Group Member, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8755-5935
Oliver TracyPatient and Public Advisory Group Member, London, UK.
Caroline M AlexanderDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1816-8939

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is an ambitious target to create a UK clinical academic workforce representing 1% of clinicians from nursing, midwifery, the allied health professions, healthcare science, pharmacy and psychology (NMAHPPs). Understanding and recording the impact that clinical academics make across healthcare services is crucial if we are to grow, value and support this highly skilled workforce group. However, it is currently difficult to systematically record, collate and report the impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. The aims of this project were to i) develop a framework outlining the impacts that were important for key stakeholder groups, and ii) create and pilot a research impact capture tool to record these impacts.

methodsThe framework was developed from the existing literature. It was refined, remodelled and approved by multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement, including patient and public representatives, healthcare managers and research-active clinicians. The framework was converted into a series of questions to create an electronic research impact capture tool, which was also refined through feedback from these stakeholder groups. The impact capture tool was piloted with research-active clinicians across a large NHS Trust and its associated organisations.

resultsThe impact framework contained eight elements: clinical background, research and service improvement activities, research capacity building, research into practice, patients and service users, research dissemination, economics and research funding, and collaborations. Thirty individuals provided data for the research impact capture tool pilot (55% response rate). Respondents reported a range of positive impacts representing all elements of the framework. Importantly, research-activity appeared to be a key driver for recruitment and retention in the sample population.

conclusionsThe impact capture tool is a feasible method of recording the breadth of impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. We encourage other organisations to collaboratively use and refine our impact capture tool, with the aim of standardising reporting, and facilitating discussions about research activity within clinical appraisal. Pooling and comparing data will also allow comparison between organisations, and assessment of change over time or after implementation of interventions aimed at supporting and increasing research activity.

Indexed as

MidwiferyPharmaceutical ServicesPharmacyDelivery of Health CareFemaleHealth FacilitiesHumansPregnancyAllied health professionsClinical academicHealthcare scienceMidwiferyNMAHPPNursingPatient and public involvementPharmacyPsychologyResearch impact

Identifiers

PMID37138350
PMCPMC10157965

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.