Determinants of research engagement in academic obstetrics and gynaecology

Abstract

BackgroundTo identify the determinants of research engagement among faculty in an academic department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.MethodsAll members of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of British Columbia were mailed an online version of the Edmonton Research Orientation Survey (EROS) in 2011 and in 2014. High scores on overall research engagement and on each of the 4 subscales, namely, value of research, value of innovation, research involvement and research utilization/evidence-based practice were quantified. Analyses were carried out on both surveys combined and on the 2014 survey separately. Logistic regression was used to identify determinants of high levels of research engagement.ResultsThe overall response rate was 37 % (130 responses; 54 respondents in 2011 and 76 respondents in 2014). The average EROS score was 140 (range 54 to 184) and 35 % of respondents had a score ≥150. Significant determinants of positive research engagement based on the overall EROS scale included being paid for research work (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 22.1, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.47–197.7) and carrying out research during unpaid hours (AOR 6.41, 95 % CI 1.97–20.9). Age <50 years (AOR 11.0, 95 % CI 1.35–89.9) and clinical experience <20 years (AOR 19.7, 95 % CI 2.18–178.8) were positively associated, while journal reading during unpaid hours (AOR 0.21, 95 % CI 0.07–0.62) was negatively associated with specific EROS subscales.ConclusionsIn a setting with a positive research orientation, research engagement among the faculty was associated with paid research time, research work and journal reading during unpaid hours and more recent entry into clinical practice.

Collaborative design of a health research training programme for nurses and midwives in Tshwane district, South Africa: a study protocol

“…Valuing research is a positive attitude towards research; the value of innovation refers to being on the leading edge or keeping up to date with information; research involvement relates to active participation in research; and research utilisation (EBP) pertains to whether respondents use research to guide their day-to-day practice. Additionally, there is a category for the barriers and support for research 32–34…”

“…Higher overall scores indicate a stronger research orientation. The scores will be categorised into high (between 143 and 215 points), medium (73–142 points) or low (0–72 points) 32 33. The tool has been extensively used to assess the research orientation of health professionals, including physiotherapists,35 midwives,36 occupational therapists,33 academics32 and undergraduate students 34.…”

“…The scores will be categorised into high (between 143 and 215 points), medium (73–142 points) or low (0–72 points) 32 33. The tool has been extensively used to assess the research orientation of health professionals, including physiotherapists,35 midwives,36 occupational therapists,33 academics32 and undergraduate students 34. Previous studies reported high internal reliability with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of 0.9537 and 0.92 34…”

Simulated Motivations: Understanding Influences on Medical Professionals Decision Making to Participate in Human Factors Research Studies

“…It may be more likely that their colleagues would participate in the study when they have an existing relationship with the person disseminating the study. Fostering a workplace culture to that which positively embraces research (Clancy & Posner, 2015;Fernandez et al, 2016) may be another way to capitalize on the motivational factor of professional respect.…”

“…Physician workload was found to negatively impact recruitment (Zausig et al, 2009). Studies have investigated attitudes of obstetrics and gynecology (OB-GYN) physicians, residents, and nurses towards academic research (Caldwell et al, 2016;Clancy & Posner, 2015;Fernandez, Sadownik, Lisonkova, Cundiff, & Joseph, 2016). However, no research to our knowledge investigated OB-GYN impressions towards human factors research.…”