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
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

103741

Informations 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.

Auteurs

Celayne Heaton-Shrestha (C)

School of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Science, Social Care and Education, Kingston University London, Kingston upon Thames KT2 7LB, UK.

Ann Ooms (A)

School of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Science, Social Care and Education, Kingston University London, Kingston upon Thames KT2 7LB, UK. Electronic address: a.ooms@kingston.ac.uk.

Mary Brady (M)

School of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Science, Social Care and Education, Kingston University London, Kingston upon Thames KT2 7LB, UK.

Gillian Pedley (G)

School of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Science, Social Care and Education, Kingston University London, Kingston upon Thames KT2 7LB, UK.

Ingrid Bacon (I)

School of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Science, Social Care and Education, Kingston University London, Kingston upon Thames KT2 7LB, UK.

Susan Strong (S)

School of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Science, Social Care and Education, Kingston University London, Kingston upon Thames KT2 7LB, UK.

Jane Dundas (J)

School of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Science, Social Care and Education, Kingston University London, Kingston upon Thames KT2 7LB, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH