Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39502859›Full record

ArticleJournal of CME2024

How Clinician-Scientists Access and Mobilise Social Capital and Thus Contribute to the Professional Development of Their Colleagues in Their Networks.

Esther de Groot, Jasperina Brouwer, Yvette Baggen, Nienke Moolenaar, Manon Kluijtmans, Roger Damoiseaux

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Esther de GrootDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0388-385X
Jasperina BrouwerFaculty Behavioural and Social Sciences, Department Educational Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7332-9320
Yvette BaggenEducation and Learning Sciences Group, Wageningen University & Research, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6284-3925
Nienke MoolenaarMinistry of Education, Culture and Science, Dutch Inspectorate of Education, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5899-929X
Manon KluijtmansCenter for Education, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6601-7639
Roger DamoiseauxDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8052-0302

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

continuing professional developmentknowledge exchangeProfessional networkssocial capital

Identifiers

PMID39502859
PMCPMC11536690

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.