Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39511573›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Collaborations between health services and educational institutions to develop research capacity in health services and health service staff: a systematic scoping review.

Melissa Nott, David Schmidt, Matt Thomas, Kathryn Reilly, Teesta Saksena, Jessica Kennedy, Catherine Hawke, Bradley Christian

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. 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

8 authors.

Melissa NottThree Rivers Department of Rural Health, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia. mnott@csu.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7088-5826
David SchmidtHealth Education and Training Institute, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1515-2990
Matt ThomasMarathon Health, Bathurst, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1622-2092
Kathryn ReillyHunter New England Local Health District, Newcastle, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2862-956X
Teesta SaksenaWestern NSW Local Health District, Orange, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7967-9682
Jessica KennedyWestern NSW Local Health District, Orange, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5714-9074
Catherine HawkeSchool of Rural Health, University of Sydney, Orange/Dubbo, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2723-9949
Bradley ChristianSchool of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5072-3512

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParticipation of health service staff in research improves health outcomes and adherence to clinical guidelines. To increase research participation, many health services seek to build research capacity which adds to the development of individual and organisational skills and abilities in order to conduct health research. Numerous approaches to research capacity building have been trialed with inter- and intra-institutional, or university-health service collaborative approaches being frequently described strategies. University-health service research collaborations have potential for high impact and mutual benefit, by harnessing respective strengths across both organisations. However, the range and scope of research capacity building approaches, including their relative value and success have not been consolidated. The aim of this review was to examine and describe the collaborative strategies employed by health services in conjunction with educational partners to enhance the research capability of health service staff.

methodsThe scoping review framework by Arksey and O'Malley was used to inform the review method. A systematic search was conducted of four major databases: Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane, focusing on publications after 1995. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established through iterative team discussions. The two-stage screening process and data extraction was managed in Covidence. Collaboration, Research Capacity, Health Services, and Health workforce were the primary concepts, contexts and populations guiding the search.

resultsOf the 1462 studies identified, 61 were selected for the review. These studies reported on partnerships between universities and health services with a specific focus on building research capacity of health service staff. Studies predominantly hailed from Australia, USA, UK, and Canada. Collaboration approaches varied and leveraged different activities to build research capacity included training, mentoring, shared funding, and networking. Training partnerships emerging as the most prevalent. Findings emphasised the importance of localisation in approaches, with some studies indicating the intrinsic value of such collaborations for both partners involved. Despite the emphasis on individual interventions like training and mentoring, team-level interventions were notably scarce.

conclusionThis review highlights the diverse range of approaches in research capacity building collaborations between health services and educational partners. It advocates for a shared understanding of goals, highlighting the critical nature of relationship-building and the pivotal role of sustainable infrastructure in long-term collaboration success. Future directions should consider the tangible impacts of these models on clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Capacity BuildingCooperative BehaviorHealth Services ResearchHealth PersonnelHealth ServicesHumansUniversitiesCollaborationHealth servicePartnershipResearch capabilityResearch capacity

Identifiers

PMID39511573
PMCPMC11545894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.