Interventions to enhance the research productivity of academic staff in higher education schools of nursing: A systematic review.
Nurse academics
Nursing faculty
Nursing research
Professional development
Research productivity
Research strategy
Research support
Systematic review
Journal
Nurse education in practice
ISSN: 1873-5223
Titre abrégé: Nurse Educ Pract
Pays: Scotland
ID NLM: 101090848
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
18
01
2023
revised:
19
07
2023
accepted:
02
08
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
8
9
2023
entrez:
7
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Synthesize and present peer-reviewed evidence of interventions that enhance the research productivity of academics in Schools of Nursing in Higher Education Institutions. Pressures on academics in Schools of Nursing worldwide to increase or maintain high research productivity persist and numerous Higher Education Institutions across the world have developed interventions to increase productivity. Given evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a withdrawal from research, understanding which interventions best support and improve research productivity is urgent. Increasing research capacity is crucial but only one element in increasing productivity. No recent attempt has been made to synthesise the knowledge gained from these more wide-ranging initiatives. A mixed-methods systematic review, registered in PROSPERO, searching four academic databases (CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO) from 1/01/2010-20/04/2022. All primary research studies of relevant interventions were included if they described the intervention, reported its outcomes and were published in the English language in peer-reviewed journals. 1637 studies were assessed against eligibility criteria, resulting in 20 included studies. No studies were excluded based on quality. Data pertaining to understandings of 'research productivity', barriers to research productivity, interventions and outcomes of interventions were extracted. The most often used measures were the frequency or staff-output ratio of funding, publications and presentations, while the less commonly used were the number of conference abstracts submitted/accepted and awards. Subjective measures were less commonly used. Barriers to research productivity fell into three broad categories: resource constraints, lack of priority for research and barriers related to the attitudes, knowledge and skills of School of Nursing academics. Interventions covered nine broad areas. Half of the interventions were multi-stranded, including a wide range of components to increase research productivity while the other half comprised one component only, such as writing groups and mentoring. All interventions had a positive impact on research productivity, however, heterogeneity in the measurement of impact, the duration of interventions, sources of comparative data and research design made comparison of interventions challenging. The review identified a need for future research to explore the barriers among under-represented groups of academics in Schools of Nursing across a broader geographical area; and what works for various sub-groups of academics. It also identified a need for a valid, standardised tool to assess the effectiveness of interventions to increase research productivity of academics in Schools of Nursing.
Sections du résumé
AIM
OBJECTIVE
Synthesize and present peer-reviewed evidence of interventions that enhance the research productivity of academics in Schools of Nursing in Higher Education Institutions.
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pressures on academics in Schools of Nursing worldwide to increase or maintain high research productivity persist and numerous Higher Education Institutions across the world have developed interventions to increase productivity. Given evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a withdrawal from research, understanding which interventions best support and improve research productivity is urgent. Increasing research capacity is crucial but only one element in increasing productivity. No recent attempt has been made to synthesise the knowledge gained from these more wide-ranging initiatives.
DESIGN
METHODS
A mixed-methods systematic review, registered in PROSPERO, searching four academic databases (CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO) from 1/01/2010-20/04/2022. All primary research studies of relevant interventions were included if they described the intervention, reported its outcomes and were published in the English language in peer-reviewed journals.
RESULTS
RESULTS
1637 studies were assessed against eligibility criteria, resulting in 20 included studies. No studies were excluded based on quality. Data pertaining to understandings of 'research productivity', barriers to research productivity, interventions and outcomes of interventions were extracted. The most often used measures were the frequency or staff-output ratio of funding, publications and presentations, while the less commonly used were the number of conference abstracts submitted/accepted and awards. Subjective measures were less commonly used. Barriers to research productivity fell into three broad categories: resource constraints, lack of priority for research and barriers related to the attitudes, knowledge and skills of School of Nursing academics. Interventions covered nine broad areas. Half of the interventions were multi-stranded, including a wide range of components to increase research productivity while the other half comprised one component only, such as writing groups and mentoring. All interventions had a positive impact on research productivity, however, heterogeneity in the measurement of impact, the duration of interventions, sources of comparative data and research design made comparison of interventions challenging.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The review identified a need for future research to explore the barriers among under-represented groups of academics in Schools of Nursing across a broader geographical area; and what works for various sub-groups of academics. It also identified a need for a valid, standardised tool to assess the effectiveness of interventions to increase research productivity of academics in Schools of Nursing.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37677991
pii: S1471-5953(23)00203-2
doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103741
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
103741Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.