Leadership development programmes in healthcare research: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-aggregation

IF 1.7 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Leader Pub Date : 2024-07-11 DOI:10.1136/leader-2024-000976
Harry Kingsley-Smith, Christian E Farrier, Daniel Foran, Koot Kotze, Kamal Mahtani, Sarah Short, Anna Mae Scott, Oscar Lyons
{"title":"Leadership development programmes in healthcare research: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-aggregation","authors":"Harry Kingsley-Smith, Christian E Farrier, Daniel Foran, Koot Kotze, Kamal Mahtani, Sarah Short, Anna Mae Scott, Oscar Lyons","doi":"10.1136/leader-2024-000976","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Academic institutions benefit from researchers adopting leadership positions and, subsequently, leadership development programmes are of increasing importance. Despite this, no evaluation of the evidence basis for leadership development programmes for healthcare researchers has been conducted. In this study, the authors reviewed leadership development programmes for healthcare researchers and aimed to identify their impact and the factors which influenced this impact. Methods The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO between January 2000 and January 2023 for evaluations of leadership development programmes with healthcare researchers. The authors synthesised results through exploratory meta-analysis and meta-aggregation and used the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for Qualitative Studies to identify higher-reliability studies. Results 48 studies met inclusion criteria, of which approximately half (22) met the criteria for higher reliability. The median critical appraisal score was 10.5/18 for the MERSQI and 3.5/10 for the JBI. Common causes of low study quality appraisal related to study design, data analysis and reporting. Evaluations principally consisted of questionnaires measuring self-assessed outcomes. Interventions were primarily focused on junior academics. Overall, 163/168 categorised programme outcomes were positive. Coaching, experiential learning/project work and mentoring were associated with increased organisational outcomes. Conclusion Educational methods appeared to be more important for organisational outcomes than specific educational content. To facilitate organisational outcomes, educational methods should include coaching, project work and mentoring. Programmes delivered by external faculty were less likely to be associated with organisational outcomes than those with internal or mixed faculty, but this needs further investigation. Finally, improving evaluation design will allow educators and evaluators to more effectively understand factors which are reliably associated with organisational outcomes of leadership development. Data are available on reasonable request.","PeriodicalId":36677,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Leader","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Leader","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/leader-2024-000976","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Academic institutions benefit from researchers adopting leadership positions and, subsequently, leadership development programmes are of increasing importance. Despite this, no evaluation of the evidence basis for leadership development programmes for healthcare researchers has been conducted. In this study, the authors reviewed leadership development programmes for healthcare researchers and aimed to identify their impact and the factors which influenced this impact. Methods The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO between January 2000 and January 2023 for evaluations of leadership development programmes with healthcare researchers. The authors synthesised results through exploratory meta-analysis and meta-aggregation and used the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for Qualitative Studies to identify higher-reliability studies. Results 48 studies met inclusion criteria, of which approximately half (22) met the criteria for higher reliability. The median critical appraisal score was 10.5/18 for the MERSQI and 3.5/10 for the JBI. Common causes of low study quality appraisal related to study design, data analysis and reporting. Evaluations principally consisted of questionnaires measuring self-assessed outcomes. Interventions were primarily focused on junior academics. Overall, 163/168 categorised programme outcomes were positive. Coaching, experiential learning/project work and mentoring were associated with increased organisational outcomes. Conclusion Educational methods appeared to be more important for organisational outcomes than specific educational content. To facilitate organisational outcomes, educational methods should include coaching, project work and mentoring. Programmes delivered by external faculty were less likely to be associated with organisational outcomes than those with internal or mixed faculty, but this needs further investigation. Finally, improving evaluation design will allow educators and evaluators to more effectively understand factors which are reliably associated with organisational outcomes of leadership development. Data are available on reasonable request.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医疗保健研究中的领导力培养计划:系统回顾、荟萃分析和荟萃汇总
背景 学术机构从担任领导职务的研究人员中获益匪浅,因此领导力培养计划的重要性与日俱增。尽管如此,目前还没有针对医疗保健研究人员领导力发展计划的证据基础进行过评估。在本研究中,作者回顾了针对医疗研究人员的领导力发展计划,旨在确定其影响以及影响这种影响的因素。方法 作者检索了 2000 年 1 月至 2023 年 1 月期间的 MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL 和 PsycINFO,以了解针对医疗研究人员的领导力发展计划的评估情况。作者通过探索性荟萃分析和荟萃归纳对结果进行了综合,并使用医学教育研究质量工具(MERSQI)和乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(JBI)定性研究核对表来识别可靠性较高的研究。结果 48 项研究符合纳入标准,其中约一半(22 项)符合可靠性较高的标准。MERSQI 的关键评价得分中位数为 10.5/18,JBI 的关键评价得分中位数为 3.5/10。造成研究质量评价低的常见原因与研究设计、数据分析和报告有关。评估主要包括测量自我评估结果的调查问卷。干预措施主要针对初级学者。总体而言,163/168 项分类计划的成果是积极的。辅导、体验式学习/项目工作和指导与组织成果的增加有关。结论 对于组织成果而言,教育方法似乎比具体的教育内容更重要。为促进组织成果,教育方法应包括辅导、项目工作和指导。与内部教师或混合教师相比,外部教师提供的课程与组织成果相关的可能性较小,但这还需要进一步调查。最后,改进评估设计将使教育者和评估者更有效地了解与领导力发展的组织成果可靠相关的因素。如有合理要求,可提供相关数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Leader
BMJ Leader Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
7.40%
发文量
57
期刊最新文献
Religious identity-based discrimination in the physician workforce: findings from a survey of Muslim physicians in the UK. Ten years on: The Snowy White Peaks of the NHS. Gender disparity in Canadian Institutes of Health Research funding within neurology. Impact of department chair gender on paid parental leave across American anaesthesiology residencies. 'Can you have it all?' Exploring perceived gender roles in leadership through the lens of the Chief Pharmaceutical Officer's clinical fellows 2023/24.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1