ArticleNursing open2024
Research delivery secondments: A scoping review.
Article in Nursing open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Research delivery secondments: A scoping review.Nursing open · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo explore and summarise published literature with regards to secondments to clinical research and to identify the gaps in research to inform further work.
designSystematic scoping review.
methodA scoping review was undertaken in accordance with the Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence and Research framework. Databases searched included CINAHL, PubMed, Medline and Embase. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied by two independent reviewers. Two reviewers independently retrieved full-text studies for inclusion and applied the framework as a tool for synthesising Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence and Research recommendations.
resultsSix papers and one abstract published between 2003 and 2018 were included. All secondees (n = 34) were released from NHS posts, with secondments (where specified) ranging in duration from 0.25 to 2 years and for 40%-100% of their working hours. All seven papers reported benefits for personal and professional development, predominantly in the form of personal reflections. Few described involvement with research delivery teams.
conclusionPublished initiatives vary in nature and lack standardised reporting and measurement of impact. Further research is required to identify benefits at a departmental or organisational level, the facilitators for setting up secondments and the application of knowledge gained from secondment opportunities. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: Undertaking a research secondment is reported to offer professional and personal benefit for clinical staff. Research secondments are one way in which a research culture can practically be embedded within clinical settings. IMPACT: This scoping review identified a lack of published empirical research seeking to understand research secondments as a tool to enhance research and evidence engagement. Although there is a suggestion that secondments could positively impact staff retention, there is limited evidence about the benefit for the organisation or for patient care. These findings have implications for staff, managers and their organisations. REPORTING
methodThe PRISMA-ScR guidelines were used to guide reporting. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This was not relevant to the research design.
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.