ArticleHealth research policy and systems2026
Medical research barriers, facilitators, and motives in a developing country: a mixed-methods single-centre study.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 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
Abstract
backgroundResearch engagement is essential for advancing clinical care and strengthening academic capacity. However, sustained participation is often limited by institutional and workflow constraints. This study assessed perceived research barriers and related factors at Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) and developed and preliminarily evaluated a context-specific instrument.
methodsA sequential, exploratory, mixed-methods, single-centre study was conducted. Qualitative interviews and focus groups informed the development of a 45-item questionnaire covering 10 domains of research barriers and motives. The final instrument was administered via an online survey, with quota-based stratified sampling across academic roles. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha.
resultsThe scale showed acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.85), but domain-level reliability was mostly modest (α range: 0.36-0.76), and the a priori 10-domain structure was not confirmed (CFI = 0.69, TLI = 0.66, RMSEA = 0.062, SRMR = 0.17); exploratory analysis supported five to six broader dimensions. A total of 358 participants completed the survey (mean age 28.66 ± 7.38; 62.6% male). The total questionnaire score ranged from 113 to 198, with a mean of 153.66 ± 16.24, indicating moderate-to-strong endorsement of perceived research challenges. The highest domain means were observed for data access and quality (27.01 ± 4.05), financial resources and infrastructure (23.01 ± 4.10), and authorship, ethics, and research performance (17.80 ± 2.95). Total scores did not differ by academic position (P = 0.27), but significant differences were observed in time, workload, and organizational support, as well as in skills, training, and methodological consultation (both P < 0.001). Total scores had a weak but significant correlation with years of research experience (P < 0.001) and H-index (P = 0.01).
conclusionPerceived research barriers at TUMS are broadly endorsed and appear concentrated in modifiable institutional domains, particularly data access and quality, resource constraints, and governance-related factors. Institutional strategies that strengthen data systems, improve access to evidence, and enhance organizational support may improve the feasibility and sustainability of research engagement in similar academic medical settings.
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.