ArticleBMC medical education2025
A mixed methods evaluation of a facilitated research career pathway for nurses, midwives, allied health professionals and healthcare scientists working in the NHS.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOpportunities for nurses, midwives, allied health professionals and healthcare scientists (NMAHP+s) to engage in research are increasing but still lag behind opportunities for medical staff.Iinitiatives to identify, support and develop NMAHP+s considering and pursuing clinical academic roles are key to growing an NMAHP+ clinical academic workforce. We describe and evaluate the impact of the Interdisciplinary Clinical Academic health Research Excellence facilitated research career pathway (iCAhRE
methodsThe study used a mixed methods approach informed by the Kirkpatrick Model of Training/Evaluation. Quantitative data related to uptake, progression through programme stages and key demographics of participants in the programme. Twenty-nine participants participated in a survey which assessed experiences of the programme, learning and impact from the programme, career trajectories, and barriers and enablers to pursuing a clinical academic career. Experiences of the programme were captured in greater depth in 12 interviews.
resultsSince 2016, participants were able to engage with the programme appropriate to their needs and research careers. Responses to the programme were highly positive and participants had increased their research knowledge and skills, initiated new research-related activities, improved their practice and increased their confidence. A high number had progressed to a role with a higher banding compared to when they started the programme (37.9%) and had research as part of their current role (55.2%). However, significant challenges to pursuing a clinical academic career for NMAHP+s included: unsupportive managers, lack of dedicated time for research engagement in a context of clinical pressures, a lack of clinical academic posts and limited progression opportunities.
conclusionsThis NHS Trust-supported high-quality facilitated research career pathway has lasting effects, increasing research knowledge and skills, informing and changing participants' clinical practice, building confidence, increasing research-related activities undertaken and career progression. The programme's range of opportunities across the whole pathway, the strong collaborative partnership between the NHS Trust and partner Higher Education Institute (HEI) and visible support for research are important contributors to the programme's impact. However, challenges to pursuing a clinical academic career for NMAHP+s persist and require further attention.
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.