ArticleJournal of CME2024
How Clinician-Scientists Access and Mobilise Social Capital and Thus Contribute to the Professional Development of Their Colleagues in Their Networks.
Article in Journal of CME, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinician-scientists, physicians who conduct research, may fulfil a bridging role in networks of health care researchers and practitioners. Within clinician-scientists' networks, knowledge sharing is thought to play a vital role in the continuing professional development of themselves and their colleagues. However, little is known about networks of clinician-scientists and how this impacts continuing professional development. Rooted in social capital theory, this study provides a mixed methods exploration of clinician-scientists' networks. Ego-level social network data were collected via semi-structured interviews on professional interactions about evidence-based practice with 15 clinician-scientists in the area of general practice and elderly care. Quantitative analysis revealed that professional networks of clinician-scientists varied in size, composition, and frequency of interactions depending on appointed research time and experience. Less experienced clinician-scientists interacted most frequently with other clinician-scientists while experienced clinician-scientist experienced more sporadically with clinicians. Clinician-scientists with more research time interacted more frequently with scientists and had a slightly larger professional network than those with less research time. The thematic qualitative analysis revealed different decision-making processes of clinician-scientists on mobilising their social capital and connecting to others in the network: (1) deliberate decision about initiating connections; (2) reactive behaviour without a decision; (3) ad-hoc decision. Clinician-scientists exchange knowledge to enhance their own continuing professional development mainly but also contribute to the professional development of clinicians, scientists, and other clinician-scientists.
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.