ArticleBMJ open2024
How professional development can be supported for health and care research methodologists: results of the PROfesSionnal develoPmEnt for Research methodologists (PROSPER) e-Delphi and consensus study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveResearch methodologists play a pivotal role in health and care research, yet they face many challenges relating to their professional development. The PROfesSional develoPmEnt for Research methodologists study was designed to understand and prioritise the professional development and capacity-building needs of research methodologists in the UK. DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsThree-round electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) survey, with input from stakeholders in the development of the candidate list of professional development aspects followed by a national consensus meeting of health and care research methodologists in the UK.
main outcome measuresRated importance of each professional development aspects on a 9-point scale.
results207 participants gave their consent to participate in the e-Delphi survey. 189 (91%) completed round 1 and 76% completed all three rounds. In round 1, 35 professional development aspects were rated by priority, with 21 additional aspects suggested by participants and included in subsequent rounds. Rounds 2 and 3 involved rating 56 aspects: 22 achieved 'consensus in', 20 were 'consensus out' and 14 had 'no consensus'. The top 'consensus in' aspects were supportive line managers, clear career pathways and promotion criteria and time for training. A consensus meeting with 18 participants rerated the 14 'no consensus' aspects, adding three more to the final list. The final list includes 25 priority areas for research methodologists' professional development.
conclusionsThis study has established the priorities from a professional development perspective for research methodologists. These priorities particularly focus on the importance of support from others, training and development, the value and recognition of the role, employer/contractual agreements and methodological research funding. The list of priorities could help individuals, managers, employers and research funders to improve professional development opportunities and could form the start of the development of a 'methodologists' charter'.
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.