ArticleFrontiers in health services2026
Making clinician-scientists visible: methods for identifying clinician research participation and metrics at scale.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 2026. 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
Background: Clinician-scientists play a vital role in advancing health and medical research and health system innovation, yet their engagement in research, alongside their clinical role, is rarely measured in a systematic or comprehensive way. This longstanding gap in clinical workforce intelligence limits the ability of health systems to monitor research activity, design appropriate support for clinician-scientist career pathways, and allocate research resources effectively. This study aimed to develop and apply scalable methods to identify clinician-scientists and quantify their research contributions at a national level. Methods: This article presents novel and scalable data linkage methods for identifying clinician-scientists, and quantifying their scholarly contributions and research impact, by linking national medical registration data with data derived from Scopus Author Profiles. The approach identifies research-active clinicians (clinician-scientists) and generates verified research metrics for each individual. The methods were applied to medical practitioners in one national jurisdiction. Results: Applied to the full population of practising Australian medical practitioners ( Conclusions: This study presents a transferable and scalable solution to a longstanding evidence gap in health workforce research. Systematically identifying clinician-scientists and quantifying their research activity can enhance the visibility of this workforce, support data-driven investment, and inform policies designed to strengthen research capability and capacity within health systems. The methods are adaptable to other clinical workforces, jurisdictions, and data sources, with clear implications for institutional reform and international collaboration. Improving the visibility of clinician-scientists offers opportunities to strengthen the clinician-scientist career pipeline, inform inclusive, data-driven health research policy, and support strategic investment in developing the research capability of the health workforce.
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.