Development and use of a research productivity assessment tool for clinicians in low-resource settings in the Pacific Islands: a Delphi study

Abstract

BackgroundResearch performance assessments have proliferated, but research indicators for use amongst clinicians in poorly resourced countries have been ill-defined. The aims of the present paper were to determine a set of indicators as determined by clinician participants from the Pacific Islands and a panel of research experts for use in the performance assessment of clinicians.MethodsTwo focus group discussions, one for nurses and one for doctors, were used to obtain the views of 28 Pacific Island clinicians of the BRRACAP Study about what the research indicators should be. A modified Delphi survey was used to obtain a consensus amongst 19 research experts, with Pacific Island research experience, as to what the indicators should be and then to rank these in terms of importance. A survey of the participants obtained data on the research tasks/actions performed 20 months after the initial research workshop. A resultant tool comprising of 21 indicators was used to assess the performance of 18 Pacific participants.ResultsThe Pacific Island clinicians determined that research was important and that performance should be measured. They identified research indicators that could be used in their settings and ranked their importance using a points system. The panel of experts identified implementation of research findings, collaborations and actual change in practice as more important, with bibliometric measurements low down in the scale. Although only 64 % of the 28 BRRACAP Study participants returned the questionnaire, 39 % of those performed more than half of the 21 indicators used. Of the 18 Pacific clinicians assessed, 7 (39 %) performed 10 or more tasks.ConclusionsA research performance assessment tool was developed using process and output indicators identified by Pacific clinicians and a panel of research experts. The tool, which placed emphasis on process and outputs that were not bibliometric based, proved useful in assessing the performance of Pacific clinicians working in a low-resource setting.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0077-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Associations of motor neuron disease research productivity and socioeconomic factors in Southeast Asia: a bibliometric analysis

“…The majority of the economies in SEA belong to low and middle-income categories. Conventional research metrics may not be an ideal gauge of research productivity in these resource-limited settings because there is a general paucity of effective healthcare systems, limited access to scientific literature, lack of funding for research and development, very limited protected time for research and a different cultural context 44 . More contextsensitive metrics, including the level of translation of research evidence into actual practice, research dissemination and degree of collaboration, are recommended.…”

The Influence of Geographic Region on Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Literature From 1988 to 2018

“…Other potential factors influencing publication, such as concealing or delaying results, insufficient resources, and inadequate training, have also been suggested. 8 , 16 , 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 When present, the requirement of paying a submission fee could also serve as a deterrent for publication for investigators in low-income countries.…”

“… 6 Research productivity (ie, publications in peer-reviewed journals) is widely regarded as a measure of success in academic disciplines. 4 , 7 , 8 Participation in notable research can generate funding for the institution of the investigator, and subsequent authorship can lead to career advancement and attainment of leadership positions. 9 10 11 12 There is strong competition for publishing in respected journals, as evidenced by rejection rates as high as 84%.…”

‘Knowledge for better health’ revisited – the increasing significance of health research systems: a review by departing Editors-in-Chief

“…New approaches to impact assessment have been published in HARPS , including a list of indicators developed in France for assessing the outcome of translational cancer research [ 80 ], an approach for assessing research in low-resource settings in the Pacific Islands [ 81 ], two new frameworks from Australia that combined previous approaches [ 82 , 83 ], and two new approaches from The Netherlands by Mostert et al [ 84 ] and by Kok and Schuit [ 85 ]. The latter’s contribution mapping approach to assessing the impact of health research is increasingly informing other studies, including in The Netherlands [ 86 ], Ghana [ 87 ] and Canada [ 88 ].…”