临床科学家如何获取和调动社会资本,从而促进其网络中同事的专业发展。

Journal of CME Pub Date : 2024-11-03 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1080/28338073.2024.2421129
Esther de Groot, Jasperina Brouwer, Yvette Baggen, Nienke Moolenaar, Manon Kluijtmans, Roger Damoiseaux
{"title":"临床科学家如何获取和调动社会资本,从而促进其网络中同事的专业发展。","authors":"Esther de Groot, Jasperina Brouwer, Yvette Baggen, Nienke Moolenaar, Manon Kluijtmans, Roger Damoiseaux","doi":"10.1080/28338073.2024.2421129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinician-scientists, physicians who conduct research, may fulfil a bridging role in networks of health care researchers and practitioners. Within clinician-scientists' networks, knowledge sharing is thought to play a vital role in the continuing professional development of themselves and their colleagues. However, little is known about networks of clinician-scientists and how this impacts continuing professional development. Rooted in social capital theory, this study provides a mixed methods exploration of clinician-scientists' networks. Ego-level social network data were collected via semi-structured interviews on professional interactions about evidence-based practice with 15 clinician-scientists in the area of general practice and elderly care. Quantitative analysis revealed that professional networks of clinician-scientists varied in size, composition, and frequency of interactions depending on appointed research time and experience. Less experienced clinician-scientists interacted most frequently with other clinician-scientists while experienced clinician-scientist experienced more sporadically with clinicians. Clinician-scientists with more research time interacted more frequently with scientists and had a slightly larger professional network than those with less research time. The thematic qualitative analysis revealed different decision-making processes of clinician-scientists on mobilising their social capital and connecting to others in the network: (1) deliberate decision about initiating connections; (2) reactive behaviour without a decision; (3) ad-hoc decision. Clinician-scientists exchange knowledge to enhance their own continuing professional development mainly but also contribute to the professional development of clinicians, scientists, and other clinician-scientists.</p>","PeriodicalId":73675,"journal":{"name":"Journal of CME","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11536690/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Clinician-Scientists Access and Mobilise Social Capital and Thus Contribute to the Professional Development of Their Colleagues in Their Networks.\",\"authors\":\"Esther de Groot, Jasperina Brouwer, Yvette Baggen, Nienke Moolenaar, Manon Kluijtmans, Roger Damoiseaux\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/28338073.2024.2421129\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Clinician-scientists, physicians who conduct research, may fulfil a bridging role in networks of health care researchers and practitioners. Within clinician-scientists' networks, knowledge sharing is thought to play a vital role in the continuing professional development of themselves and their colleagues. However, little is known about networks of clinician-scientists and how this impacts continuing professional development. Rooted in social capital theory, this study provides a mixed methods exploration of clinician-scientists' networks. Ego-level social network data were collected via semi-structured interviews on professional interactions about evidence-based practice with 15 clinician-scientists in the area of general practice and elderly care. Quantitative analysis revealed that professional networks of clinician-scientists varied in size, composition, and frequency of interactions depending on appointed research time and experience. Less experienced clinician-scientists interacted most frequently with other clinician-scientists while experienced clinician-scientist experienced more sporadically with clinicians. Clinician-scientists with more research time interacted more frequently with scientists and had a slightly larger professional network than those with less research time. The thematic qualitative analysis revealed different decision-making processes of clinician-scientists on mobilising their social capital and connecting to others in the network: (1) deliberate decision about initiating connections; (2) reactive behaviour without a decision; (3) ad-hoc decision. Clinician-scientists exchange knowledge to enhance their own continuing professional development mainly but also contribute to the professional development of clinicians, scientists, and other clinician-scientists.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73675,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of CME\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11536690/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of CME\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/28338073.2024.2421129\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of CME","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/28338073.2024.2421129","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

临床科学家,即从事研究的医生,可以在医疗保健研究人员和从业人员网络中发挥桥梁作用。在临床科学家的网络中,知识共享被认为对其自身及其同事的持续专业发展起着至关重要的作用。然而,人们对临床科学家网络及其如何影响持续专业发展却知之甚少。本研究以社会资本理论为基础,采用混合方法对临床科学家的网络进行了探讨。通过对 15 名全科和老年护理领域的临床科学家进行有关循证实践的专业互动的半结构化访谈,收集了自我层面的社会网络数据。定量分析显示,临床科学家的专业网络在规模、组成和互动频率上各不相同,这取决于指定的研究时间和经验。经验较少的临床科学家与其他临床科学家的互动最为频繁,而经验丰富的临床科学家与临床医生的互动则较为零散。与研究时间较少的临床科学家相比,研究时间较多的临床科学家与科学家的交流更为频繁,其专业网络也稍大一些。专题定性分析揭示了临床科学家在调动其社会资本并与网络中的其他人建立联系方面的不同决策过程:(1)关于建立联系的深思熟虑的决策;(2)没有决策的被动行为;(3)临时决策。临床科学家交流知识,主要是为了加强自身的持续专业发展,同时也是为了促进临床医生、科学家和其他临床科学家的专业发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
How Clinician-Scientists Access and Mobilise Social Capital and Thus Contribute to the Professional Development of Their Colleagues in Their Networks.

Clinician-scientists, physicians who conduct research, may fulfil a bridging role in networks of health care researchers and practitioners. Within clinician-scientists' networks, knowledge sharing is thought to play a vital role in the continuing professional development of themselves and their colleagues. However, little is known about networks of clinician-scientists and how this impacts continuing professional development. Rooted in social capital theory, this study provides a mixed methods exploration of clinician-scientists' networks. Ego-level social network data were collected via semi-structured interviews on professional interactions about evidence-based practice with 15 clinician-scientists in the area of general practice and elderly care. Quantitative analysis revealed that professional networks of clinician-scientists varied in size, composition, and frequency of interactions depending on appointed research time and experience. Less experienced clinician-scientists interacted most frequently with other clinician-scientists while experienced clinician-scientist experienced more sporadically with clinicians. Clinician-scientists with more research time interacted more frequently with scientists and had a slightly larger professional network than those with less research time. The thematic qualitative analysis revealed different decision-making processes of clinician-scientists on mobilising their social capital and connecting to others in the network: (1) deliberate decision about initiating connections; (2) reactive behaviour without a decision; (3) ad-hoc decision. Clinician-scientists exchange knowledge to enhance their own continuing professional development mainly but also contribute to the professional development of clinicians, scientists, and other clinician-scientists.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
How Clinician-Scientists Access and Mobilise Social Capital and Thus Contribute to the Professional Development of Their Colleagues in Their Networks. Long-Term Effects of Individual-Focused and Team-Based Training on Health Professionals' Intention to Have Serious Illness Conversations: A Cluster Randomised Trial. A Systematic Investigation of Assessment Scores, Self-Efficacy, and Clinical Practice: Are They Related? Evolving Maintenance of Certification in Canada: A Collaborative Journey. Finding the Invisible Patient to Address Substance Use, Violence, and Depression in Women Living with HIV.
×
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