Reporting health research translation and impact in the curriculum vitae: a survey

Abstract

Background: Increasingly, health researchers must demonstrate the impact and real-life applications of their research. We investigated how health researchers with expertise in knowledge translation report research translation activities and impact on their curriculum vitae (CV). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of health researchers with expertise in knowledge translation as we anticipated best practices in CV reporting from this specialized group. Our survey asked participants about their reporting of research translation and impact activities on their CVs, intention to report, and barriers and facilitators to reporting such activities on their CVs. We calculated univariate descriptive statistics for all quantitative data. Linear regression models determined predictors of researchers' intention to report research translation and impact activities on their CVs. We analyzed open-ended qualitative responses using content analysis. Results: One hundred and fifty-three health researchers responded to the survey (response rate = 29%). Most respondents were Canadian, were female, and had a doctoral degree. Eighty-two percent indicated they reported at least one research translation and/or impact indicator on their CVs. Of those, health researchers commonly reported the following: advisory/regulatory committee membership related to research program (83%), research translation award(s) (61%), and academic performance assessments (59%). Researchers least commonly indicated the following: citation metric scores (31%), summaries of impact (21%), and requests to use research materials and/ or products (19%). Fewer than half of the health researchers intended to report knowledge translation (43%) and impact (33%) on their CVs. Strong beliefs about capabilities and consequences of reporting research translation and/or impact were significant predictors of intention. Main barriers were as follows: CV templates do not include research translation and impact activities, participants perceived employers do not value research translation and impact activities, and lack of metrics to evaluate research translation and impact. Ninety-six percent were unaware of a CV template formatted to include research translation and/or impact reporting. Conclusions: Knowledge translation and impact indicators on the CV are inconsistently reported by our sample of health researchers. Modifiable barriers should be addressed to support more consistent reporting of such activities, including providing a CV template that includes research translation and impact as well as clear metrics to quantify them.

Use of the CPD-REACTION Questionnaire to Evaluate Continuing Professional Development Activities for Health Professionals: Systematic Review

“…Of all the studies, 69% (36/52) were published between 2019 and 2021 [ 9 , 32 - 68 ]. Furthermore, 58% (30/52) were located in Canada [ 7 , 8 , 10 - 12 , 23 - 25 , 28 , 31 , 35 , 38 - 41 , 44 - 51 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 60 , 63 , 65 , 67 ] and the rest in the United States (n=6), the United Kingdom (n=4), Australia (n=2) [ 30 , 34 ], Iran (n=2) [ 55 , 64 ], Argentina (n=1) [ 52 ], Indonesia (n=1) [ 32 ], Germany (n=1) [ 58 ], Sweden (n=1) [ 21 ], the Netherlands (n=1) [ 59 ], and Burkina Faso (n=1) [ 37 ]. In addition, two multicountry studies were reported: 1 from Brazil-China-France-Japan-Mali [ 68 ] and 1 from Canada-Vietnam [ 19 ] ( Table 1 ; Figure 2 ).…”

“…( Table 2 ). In most studies, participants in CPD activities consisted of interprofessional groups (30/52, 60%) [ 7 , 9 - 11 , 19 , 21 , 27 , 28 , 31 , 35 , 37 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 55 - 61 , 63 , 64 , 66 - 68 ]. Professions included nurses (5/52, 10%) [ 26 , 29 , 30 , 48 , 54 ], physicians (4/52, 8%) [ 38 , 39 , 49 , 52 ], social workers or other health professionals, namely occupational therapists, physiotherapists, dietitians, behavioral counselors, nutritionists, health researchers (4/52, 8%) [ 23 - 25 , 34 , 36 ], specialist physicians (3/52, 6%) [ 32 , 40 , 65 ], and pharmacists (2/52, 4%) [ 22 , 42 ].…”

“…The questionnaire was administered in four languages: French (14/52, 27%) or English (28/52, 54%) [ 8 - 11 , 19 , 21 - 24 ,​ 26 - 32 , 34 - 37 , 39 - 51 , 53 - 55 , 57 , 59 - 68 ], Spanish (1/52, 2%) [ 52 ] and Dutch (1/52, 2%) [ 58 ]. The median number of CPD activities targeting behavior change per study was 1 and varied between 1 and 9 CPD activities per study.…”

“…The median number of CPD activities targeting behavior change per study was 1 and varied between 1 and 9 CPD activities per study. One-quarter (11/52, 21%) of the studies used CPD-REACTION to measure behavioral change intention but were not linked to a specific CPD activity [ 21 , 22 , 29 , 31 , 38 , 40 , 45 , 46 , 51 , 53 , 59 ] ( Table 1 ). The most common format for CPD activities was web-based or e-learning based (34/52, 65%).…”

Metrics to evaluate implementation scientists in the USA: what matters most?

“…Another example is the International School on Research Impact Assessment (ISRIA), which is intended to assist organizations in conducting effective research impact assessments for any scientific domain [ 32 ]. Structured CV templates that include research translation activities could also address existing inconsistencies in reporting impact [ 33 ].…”