只有在符合条件的工业科学研究所和学术学术研究所中,国际疾病研究所的研究宣称:“系统审查/挑战和对来自多个医疗保健专业人士的共同研究和科学出版的培育因素

Lindy King, Tatjana Zlatanovic, David Gillham
{"title":"只有在符合条件的工业科学研究所和学术学术研究所中,国际疾病研究所的研究宣称:“系统审查/挑战和对来自多个医疗保健专业人士的共同研究和科学出版的培育因素","authors":"Lindy King, Tatjana Zlatanovic, David Gillham","doi":"10.2478/ijhp-2018-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction While academics are frequently engaged in research activities and subsequent dissemination of results through publication, all too often they occur without health practitioner involvement. While there are contemporary expectations that health practitioners will be active contributors to their discipline’s body of knowledge, many find it difficult to prioritise research involvement given the demands of direct patient care. With this awareness as a central focus, we undertook a literature review to identify the challenges and facilitators that impact on health practitioners and academics working collaboratively on research and publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals. Methods A configurative systematic review was performed with six electronic databases (Proquest, CINAHL, Medline, ScienceDirect, ERIC, SocINDEX) searched for studies from the disciplines of nursing, social work, allied health professions, health management, psychology and sociology. Manual searches were also undertaken to minimise the risk of missed studies. A rigorous search and retrieval process identified 20 relevant studies for inclusion in the review. The studies were first critically appraised then summarised. These steps were followed by thematic synthesis of the findings of the reviewed studies. Results Challenges and facilitators to health practitioners and academics working collaboratively on research activities were found to be related to the interplay between practitioners, academics, educational and health institutions and professional demands. The interplay of these factors emerged as complex. Conclusion Strategies have been recommended that may encourage active partnerships between institutions, health practitioners and academics enabling greater research collaborations and subsequent increased publication of their combined achievements.","PeriodicalId":91706,"journal":{"name":"International journal of health professions","volume":"110 1","pages":"121 - 145"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Challenges and facilitators for health practitioners and academics engaging in collaborative research and publication: A systematic review / Herausforderungen und Förderfaktoren für gemeinsame Forschung und wissenschaftliche Publikation von Angehörigen verschiedener Gesundheitsberufe aus Praxis und \",\"authors\":\"Lindy King, Tatjana Zlatanovic, David Gillham\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/ijhp-2018-0012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Introduction While academics are frequently engaged in research activities and subsequent dissemination of results through publication, all too often they occur without health practitioner involvement. While there are contemporary expectations that health practitioners will be active contributors to their discipline’s body of knowledge, many find it difficult to prioritise research involvement given the demands of direct patient care. With this awareness as a central focus, we undertook a literature review to identify the challenges and facilitators that impact on health practitioners and academics working collaboratively on research and publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals. Methods A configurative systematic review was performed with six electronic databases (Proquest, CINAHL, Medline, ScienceDirect, ERIC, SocINDEX) searched for studies from the disciplines of nursing, social work, allied health professions, health management, psychology and sociology. Manual searches were also undertaken to minimise the risk of missed studies. A rigorous search and retrieval process identified 20 relevant studies for inclusion in the review. The studies were first critically appraised then summarised. These steps were followed by thematic synthesis of the findings of the reviewed studies. Results Challenges and facilitators to health practitioners and academics working collaboratively on research activities were found to be related to the interplay between practitioners, academics, educational and health institutions and professional demands. The interplay of these factors emerged as complex. Conclusion Strategies have been recommended that may encourage active partnerships between institutions, health practitioners and academics enabling greater research collaborations and subsequent increased publication of their combined achievements.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91706,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of health professions\",\"volume\":\"110 1\",\"pages\":\"121 - 145\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of health professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/ijhp-2018-0012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of health professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/ijhp-2018-0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

虽然学术界经常参与研究活动并通过出版物传播结果,但这些活动往往没有卫生从业人员的参与。虽然人们期望卫生从业人员积极贡献本学科的知识体系,但许多人发现,考虑到直接护理病人的需求,很难优先考虑研究参与。以这一意识为中心,我们进行了文献综述,以确定影响卫生从业人员和学者合作研究并在同行评议期刊上发表其研究结果的挑战和促进因素。方法运用Proquest、CINAHL、Medline、ScienceDirect、ERIC、SocINDEX等6个电子数据库,检索护理学、社会工作、专职卫生专业、健康管理、心理学和社会学等学科的相关研究。还进行了人工搜索,以尽量减少错过研究的风险。经过严格的检索过程,确定了20项相关研究纳入本综述。这些研究首先进行了批判性评价,然后进行了总结。在这些步骤之后,对审查的研究结果进行专题综合。结果研究发现,卫生从业人员和学者合作开展研究活动的挑战和促进因素与从业人员、学者、教育和卫生机构以及专业需求之间的相互作用有关。这些因素的相互作用显得很复杂。已建议采取战略,鼓励机构、卫生从业人员和学术界之间建立积极的伙伴关系,促进更多的研究合作,并随后增加他们共同成果的发表。
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
Challenges and facilitators for health practitioners and academics engaging in collaborative research and publication: A systematic review / Herausforderungen und Förderfaktoren für gemeinsame Forschung und wissenschaftliche Publikation von Angehörigen verschiedener Gesundheitsberufe aus Praxis und
Abstract Introduction While academics are frequently engaged in research activities and subsequent dissemination of results through publication, all too often they occur without health practitioner involvement. While there are contemporary expectations that health practitioners will be active contributors to their discipline’s body of knowledge, many find it difficult to prioritise research involvement given the demands of direct patient care. With this awareness as a central focus, we undertook a literature review to identify the challenges and facilitators that impact on health practitioners and academics working collaboratively on research and publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals. Methods A configurative systematic review was performed with six electronic databases (Proquest, CINAHL, Medline, ScienceDirect, ERIC, SocINDEX) searched for studies from the disciplines of nursing, social work, allied health professions, health management, psychology and sociology. Manual searches were also undertaken to minimise the risk of missed studies. A rigorous search and retrieval process identified 20 relevant studies for inclusion in the review. The studies were first critically appraised then summarised. These steps were followed by thematic synthesis of the findings of the reviewed studies. Results Challenges and facilitators to health practitioners and academics working collaboratively on research activities were found to be related to the interplay between practitioners, academics, educational and health institutions and professional demands. The interplay of these factors emerged as complex. Conclusion Strategies have been recommended that may encourage active partnerships between institutions, health practitioners and academics enabling greater research collaborations and subsequent increased publication of their combined achievements.
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
Interdisciplinary cooperation in the outpatient practice: results from a focus group interview with occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and physiotherapists / Gestaltung der interdisziplinären Zusammenarbeit in der ambulanten Therapie: Resultate eines Fokusgruppeninterviews mit E The role of lecturers in interprofessional education – a survey of lecturers in Germany / Die Rolle von Dozierenden in der interprofessionellen Ausbildung – eine Befragung von Lehrverantwortlichen in Deutschland Home-based palliative care services from the perspective of family caregivers: an evaluation of the Integrated Palliative Care model in Tyrol / Häusliche Palliativversorgung aus der Sicht der pflegenden Angehörigen - eine Evaluation des Modells Integrierte Palliativversorgung in Tirol Needs-based educational support for parents in the neonatal intensive care unit - perspectives of parent counsellors / Bedarfsorientierte edukative Unterstützung für Eltern nach einer Frühgeburt aus der Perspektive von Elternberaterinnen Outpatient speech and language therapy via videoconferencing in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic: Experiences of therapists / Videotherapie in der ambulanten Logopädie/Sprachtherapie in Deutschland während der COVID-19 Pandemie: Erfahrungen von Therapeut/innen
×
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