How can healthcare organisations increase doctors’ research engagement? A scoping review

Abstract

PurposeClinician engagement in research has positive impacts for healthcare, but is often difficult for healthcare organisations to support in light of limited resources. This scoping review aimed to describe the literature on health service-administered strategies for increasing research engagement by medical practitioners.Design/methodology/approachMedline, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched from 2000 to 2021 and two independent reviewers screened each record for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were that studies sampled medically qualified clinicians; reported empirical data; investigated effectiveness of an intervention in improving research engagement and addressed interventions implemented by an individual health service/hospital.FindingsOf the 11,084 unique records, 257 studies were included. Most (78.2%) studies were conducted in the USA, and were targeted at residents (63.0%). Outcomes were measured in a variety of ways, most commonly publication-related outcomes (77.4%), though many studies used more than one outcome measure (70.4%). Pre-post (38.8%) and post-only (28.7%) study designs were the most common, while those using a contemporaneous control group were uncommon (11.5%). The most commonly reported interventions included Resident Research Programs (RRPs), protected time, mentorship and education programs. Many articles did not report key information needed for data extraction (e.g. sample size).Originality/valueThis scoping review demonstrated that, despite a large volume of research, issues like poor reporting, infrequent use of robust study designs and heterogeneous outcome measures limited application. The most compelling available evidence pointed to RRPs, protected time and mentorship as effective interventions. Further high-quality evidence is needed to guide healthcare organisations on increasing medical research engagement.

“Luck of the draw really”: A qualitative exploration of trainee doctors’ experiences of mandatory research in Australia and New Zealand

“…The literature a rms many training programs do not have key elements shown to support trainee research activity, such as an organized research curriculum, appropriate supervision and protected time. (33,47,(50)(51)(52)(53) A trainees' experience should not rely on where they are placed, especially when current systems may disadvantage those placed in under-resourced regional/rural locations or smaller health services. (16,54) Supports should be directed to the subset of trainees who choose to complete a project, rather than providing this signi cant level of support to every trainee.…”

“…Key theories of research culture and behaviour change hold that mandating activity should be the last strategy implemented, after other strategies have made it possible, easy, normative and rewarding. (60) Studies support this, nding that even mandating trainee research activity has mixed impacts on trainee outputs, (11,18,50) and that trainees often feel that research projects should not be a mandatory part of training, preferring it be replaced with other activities. (14, 16, 18, 46, 48) However, many trainees also emphasise the importance of understanding the principles of research and evidence for training, (16, 18, 30, 46, 48) and recognise that trainee-led research outputs are vital to career progression in many specialties.…”