Medical Educators' Perceptions of Research Culture in a Faculty of Health Sciences: A South African Study

A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture

Background

The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem.

Aims

The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ' What does the evidence say about the 'problem' with 'poor' research culture, what are the benefits of 'good' research culture, and what does 'good' look like?'

Methods

A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022.

Results

1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability.

Conclusions

There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals' well-being, career progression and performance.

Health research mentorship in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review was to explore and synthesize the available literature on health research mentorship in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

INTRODUCTION

Research mentorship is broadly considered a useful strategy to improve research capacities and research outputs. Existing literature and guidance on research mentorship have focused on high-income countries and assumed resource-rich environments. Despite the successful endeavors to improve health research capacity in LMICs, the strategies that work best under different circumstances are poorly understood. There is a need to map and understand the evidence on health research mentorship in the context of LMICs.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Sources that reported existing practices, barriers, and mitigation strategies related to health research mentorship in LMICs were included.

METHODS

We searched for published and unpublished studies and reports written in English, Spanish, or Portuguese. The search strategy was not limited by search dates and the last search was conducted on January 28, 2022. The databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and JBI Evidence Synthesis . We also searched for gray literature in a selection of websites and digital repositories. The JBI scoping review methodology was used.

RESULTS

A total of 77 studies and reports were included in the review. The majority of the papers were from Africa (n=28). Others were from the Americas (n=7), South East Asia (n=4), East Mediterranean (n=2), and Western Pacific (n=2). The remaining studies were from LMICs that included at least 2 regional offices. Most of the mentorship projects (n=55) were initiated and funded by institutions from high-income countries. The first authors of 41 papers were primarily affiliated with LMICs. The findings were categorized under a description of research mentorship practices, barriers related to research mentorship, and suggested mitigation strategies. Deliverable-driven training using intensive hands-on mentorship and ongoing peer mentorship programs were some of the non-regular, non-institutionalized approaches used to improve research capacity for junior researchers in LMICs. None of the included papers focused on institutional components of research mentorship in LMICs. The barriers to research mentorship activities in LMICs included lack of clarity on mentorship, cultural variations, unbalanced power dynamics, socio-political influences, language barriers, lack of experienced mentors, and limited local funding. Institutionalizing research mentorship, adapting mentoring methodologies relying on local resources, and addressing and respecting diversity in mentorship programs were among the main strategies identified to effectively implement research mentorship in LMICs.

CONCLUSIONS

Research mentorship initiatives and practices are limited in LMICs. Few available practices have been introduced by researchers and research institutions from high-income countries and those that have are not yet institutionalized. The identified existing practices, barriers, and facilitators on health research mentorship could help the design, implementation, and evaluation of programs to institutionalize health research mentorship in LMICs.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework osf.io/jqa9z/.

SUPPLEMENTAL DIGITAL CONTENT

A Spanish-language version of the abstract of this review is available as supplemental digital content: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A32.

Fostering student and faculty scholarship in an accelerated three-year medical school

Background: In acknowledgement of the importance of research competency in academic medicine, an extracurricular student research program and faculty development researcher pathway was developed to promote scholarly productivity at New York University (NYU) Long Island School of Medicine (LISOM), a three-year accelerated Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME)-accredited medical school. The aim was to enhance medical students' and faculty scholarly productivity, by creating new training programs targeting research skills and academic collaboration. Impact was assessed by initial review of the extracurricular student research program and faculty development researcher pathway. Methods: Electronic surveys via Google were sent out to all current (n = 72) students on 9/20/2021 and the faculty identified based on their primary appointment to NYU LISOM in the learning management system on 9/17/2021 to determine participation in research, presentation of research findings, satisfaction with the program, and research opportunities for students.  Student scholarly productivity was tracked using PubMed, restricted to search years 2020 through 2022.  For the faculty development researcher pathway, publications were tracked for each participant before and after completion of the program, with pre- and post-completion dates ranging from 2012 through 2020.  Results: Student survey results (29 responses out of 72) indicated 28% of students were involved in research with institutional faculty and 59% were interested in starting a research project. Most students involved in extracurricular research were satisfied with their experience and eight students have publications with faculty.  For the faculty development researcher pathway, 35% of the participants increased publications after program graduation. Conclusions: Outcomes from the student research program and faculty researcher pathway were positive regarding student research engagement and faculty scholarly productivity, though long-term outcomes are yet to be evaluated. Progress will be tracked as students continue through undergraduate and graduate medical education, and as both students and faculty progress throughout their career.

Perspectives on Gender in Science, Technology, and Innovation: A Review of Sub-Saharan Africa's Science Granting Councils and Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

Africa's focus on science, technology, and innovation (STI) has grown over the last decade, with emerging examples of good practice. There are however numerous challenges to sustainable development in Africa; for example, inequalities within and among African countries are rising and enormous disparities of opportunity, wealth, and power persist. While policy makers and organizations have put increasing emphasis on integrating gender into STI policies and initiatives as a means to achieve gender equality for all women and girls, inequality remains a key challenge to continental sustainable development. STI funders such as the Science Granting Councils (SGCs) in Africa are key players in national innovation systems. They advise and facilitate policy and program development, disburse funds, build research capacity, set and monitor research agendas, manage bilateral and multilateral STI agreements, and assess the communication, uptake, and impact of research. They, therefore, have a major role to play in enabling countries to achieve SDG5. This study assessed the current actions in gender mainstreaming across the SGCs and the status of gender research and collaboration in participating countries. Our findings provide evidence of uneven progress in promoting gender equality in the operations of the SGCs, including funding research and promoting the integration of gender dimensions in research content and curricula. All SGCs emphasized national commitments to gender, and the importance of gender in STI, but acknowledged that at the structural and institutional levels there was a misalignment between policy and practice. As expected, more men than women were employed across most levels at the SGCs and held positions of seniority and decision making. Most of the SGCs had very limited or no gender-related funding programs to promote gender and STI or to eliminate the barriers that women scholars face. This resulted in persistent inequalities in who received funding, the size of the grants they received, and in the knowledge production, collaboration, and the impact on their country's gender-related research. These findings suggest that SGCs need to strengthen their actions to mainstream gender if they are to achieve success with SDG5.

Contextualising the Perceptions of Pharmacists Practicing Clinical Pharmacy in South Africa-Do We Practice what We Preach?

The National Department of Health published their Quality Standards for Healthcare Establishments in South Africa and introduced the National Health Insurance, with the pilot phase that commenced in 2012. The system requires an adequate supply of pharmaceutical personnel and the direct involvement of clinical pharmacists throughout the medication-use process to ensure continuity of care, minimised risk with increasing improvement of patient outcomes. The study aimed to provide insight into the pressing issues of clinical pharmacy practice in South Africa, and sets out to contextualise the current profile of the pharmacist performing clinical functions. The study used a quantitative, explorative, cross-sectional design. The population included pharmacists from private and public tertiary hospitals. A questionnaire was administered, using Typeform™. Ethics approval was obtained from Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, National Department of Health and Private Healthcare groups. Categorical data were summarised using frequency counts and percentages; continuous data were summarised by mean values and standard deviations. The sample size included 70 pharmacists practicing clinical pharmacy (private sector n = 59; public sector n = 11). Most participants hold a BPharm degree (busy with MPharm qualification) (64%; n = 70). No statistical significance was found between participants in private and public practice. Most pharmacist agreed (32% (private); n = 59) and strongly agreed (45% (public); n = 11) to have sufficient training to perform pharmaceutical care. The majority respondents felt that interventions made by the pharmacist improved the rational use of medicine (47% (private); 55% (public). Pharmacist interventions influence prescribing patterns (42% (private); 64% (public); and reduce polypharmacy (41% (private); 55% (public). The clinical functions mostly performed were evaluation of prescriptions (private 90%; public 82%), while the top logistical function is daily ordering of medication (40.7%; private), and checking of ward stock (36%; public). Although not all pharmacists appointed in South Africa has completed the MPharm degree in clinical pharmacy, the pharmacists at ward level perform numerous clinical functions, even if only for a small part of their workday. This paper sets the way to standardise practices of clinical pharmacy in South Africa, with a reflection on the differences in practice in different institutions.