Critical Gaps in Understanding the Clinician-Scientist Workforce: Results of an International Expert Meeting

The role of healthcare leaders in implementing equitable clinical academic pathways for nurses: An integrative review

AIM

To identify and synthesize empirical evidence on the role of healthcare leaders in the development of equitable clinical academic pathways for nurses.

DESIGN

Integrative literature review.

DATA SOURCES

Literature was searched using CINAHL, PubMed, ProQuest and Google Scholar databases.

REVIEW METHODS

A total of 114 eligible articles published between 2010 and2022 were screened, 16 papers were selected.

RESULTS

Results highlighted the need for consistent national, regional, and organizational policy approaches to developing clinical academic careers for nurses. Government health departments and National Health boards must focus on increasing engagement in research and evidence-based nursing practice for high-quality patient care. Discriminatory practices and attitudes were identified as barriers. Discrimination due to gender was evident, while the impact of race, ethnicity, and other social categories of identity are under-researched. Educational leaders must unravel misconceptions about research, highlighting its relevance to patient care and bedside nurses' work. Academic leaders together with executive nurses, research funders and professional nursing bodies must create appropriately remunerated career structures. Transformative approaches are required to develop the clinical academic nurse role and understand its value in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

Multiple elements exist within complex systems that healthcare leaders can navigate collaboratively to develop and implement clinical nurse academic roles. This requires vision, acknowledgement of the value of nursing research and the importance of evidence-based research infrastructures.

IMPACT

Findings highlight the collaborative role of healthcare leaders as critical to the success of critical academic careers for nurses. This review can inform those still to formalize this innovative role for nurses.

REPORTING METHOD

The review complies with the PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic reviews. This paper contributes evidence about the healthcare leader's role in developing clinical academic pathways for nurses to the wider global clinical community.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution was included in this review.

Clinical, Cultural, Computational, and Regulatory Considerations to Deploy AI in Radiology: Perspectives of RSNA and MICCAI Experts

The Radiological Society of North of America (RSNA) and the Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention (MICCAI) Society have led a series of joint panels and seminars focused on the present impact and future directions of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology. These conversations have collected viewpoints from multidisciplinary experts in radiology, medical imaging, and machine learning on the current clinical penetration of AI technology in radiology and how it is impacted by trust, reproducibility, explainability, and accountability. The collective points-both practical and philosophical-define the cultural changes for radiologists and AI scientists working together and describe the challenges ahead for AI technologies to meet broad approval. This article presents the perspectives of experts from MICCAI and RSNA on the clinical, cultural, computational, and regulatory considerations-coupled with recommended reading materials-essential to adopt AI technology successfully in radiology and, more generally, in clinical practice. The report emphasizes the importance of collaboration to improve clinical deployment, highlights the need to integrate clinical and medical imaging data, and introduces strategies to ensure smooth and incentivized integration. Keywords: Adults and Pediatrics, Computer Applications-General (Informatics), Diagnosis, Prognosis © RSNA, 2024.

Maximizing Nurse Scientist Role Potential in Health Care Organizations

Before Magnet designation, nurse scientists functioned primarily in academia. The Magnet model's emphasis on new knowledge required that health care organizations demonstrate knowledge generation to achieve and sustain designation. The nurse scientist role definition and function within health care organizations continues to evolve, which contributes to a lack of clarity about who and how nurses generate new knowledge. The purpose of this scoping review was to (1) identify nurse scientist role components in the context of 2 theoretical models (Thompson's Knowledge Brokering Model and Edward's Research Appreciation, Accessibility, and Application Model), (2) explore the strengths and barriers associated with existing nurse scientist practice models in US health care organizations, and (3) describe a unique, expanded practice model applied within Stanford Health Care's Office of Research and its implications for building new knowledge and innovation capacity with recommendations for ongoing role development.

Optimizing the Role of the Hospital-Based Nurse Scientist in a Changing Nursing Environment: Recommendations for Nurse Leaders

Nurses and nurse leaders directing clinical organizations can elevate scholarly inquiry by employing a PhD-prepared hospital-based nurse scientist (HBNS). This individual will shape the culture of clinical inquiry, leading and driving efforts to close the gap between knowledge and practice. As the nursing workforce struggles to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, now more than ever, collaborations between HBNSs and nurse leaders are essential to explore and test new nursing care delivery systems. Given the national shortage in the PhD-prepared nurse scientist talent pool, attracting and hiring the right candidate is critical. The purpose of this article is to provide practical recommendations for nurse leaders to introduce an HBNS into an organization as an important building block for nursing science and improved clinical practice. The role of the HBNS has evolved in tandem with increased education in the nursing workforce, evidence-based practice, and the explosion of implementation science. Before recruiting an HBNS, the organization must create a job description that outlines responsibilities, paying attention to the HBNS position within the organizational structure. Additionally, leaders must consider the candidate's characteristics for interacting with clinical staff. The senior nursing leadership team must recognize and appreciate the HBNS as a scholar and advisor.

Predictors of academic career progression among early career physician-scientists via an intensive research training program abroad: a case study

BACKGROUND

Despite extensive efforts to revitalize the physician-scientist pipeline, attrition has been observed along the physician-scientist developmental pathway. Research exposure during clinical training is considered an important factor favoring the decision to pursue an academic career pathway.

METHODS

The authors sought to identify factors associated with academic career progression among junior physician-scientists following the completion of an intensive research training program, using the framework of the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT), to benefit the design of efforts to revitalize the physician-scientist career pipeline. We conducted a retrospective study of 108 physicians who completed a long-term research training program abroad during residency, or within a few years post-residency completion, between 2010 and 2017. With potential predictors of academic career progression prioritized by SCCT, multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of sustained research involvement, high productivity and high research competency after training, respectively. The SCCT was used to illuminate our findings.

RESULTS

Co-publications with training supervisors abroad and medical oncology/pediatric oncology as a clinical specialty were positively associated with sustained research involvement and high productivity. Joining the training program after the age of 36 was negatively associated with high research competency. All of the predictors shared a common feature of high correlation with both self-efficacy and environmental elements, the reciprocal interactions of which may affect the career progression of physician-scientists.

CONCLUSIONS

Insights gained through this analysis provide policy recommendations for the designing of efforts to revitalize the physician-scientist career pipeline. Priorities should be given to institutional oversight to ensure strengthened self-efficacy at the beginning of one's academic career, by providing long-term research training opportunities to young residents and promoting co-publications with their training supervisors during the training. In order to avoid the negative impact to self-efficacy caused by patient-related burnout or academic isolation, academic medical centers should take measures to guarantee protected research time, and to develop a positive culture encouraging mentoring relationships between junior and experienced physician-scientists in medical departments.

A scoping review on the nurse scientist role within healthcare systems

BACKGROUND

The role of the nurse scientist in the clinical setting is not well defined, which contributes to variability in role implementation, scope, administration, funding, and affiliation across healthcare sites.

AIMS

The aim of this scoping review was to identify attributes of the clinical nurse scientist role and its operationalization in the clinical setting through available evidence.

METHODS

A comprehensive, computerized search of the literature in PubMed, Medline, and CINAHL was conducted in early May 2020 by a medical research librarian and repeated in July 2021 and April 2022. The 5-step framework described by Arskey and O'Malley guided the review methodology. Two reviewers conducted an independent screen of all articles, followed by a full-text review of eligible articles by two independent reviewers each using a standardized data extraction template. Themes were then organized and synthesized using descriptive content analysis from the included articles.

RESULTS

A final sample of 55 full-text articles were included in the review. Overall, the findings suggest that the nurse scientist role in a clinical setting can be challenging to implement in complex healthcare environments. Successful models include the nurse scientist in a leadership role, alignment of research with institutional priorities, and strong support from senior leadership.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

Findings suggest that standardized guidelines are lacking to govern the implementation of the nurse scientist role in the clinical setting. To succeed, the nurse scientist role must be valued and supported by organizational leaders. Further, access to resources to build infrastructure must be provided. The magnitude and scope of individual organizational support can be tailored based on the resources of the institution; however, the foundation of having institutional leadership support is critical to role success of the clinical nurse researcher.

Research in orthopaedic trauma surgery: approaches of basic scientists and clinicians and the relevance of interprofessional research teams

BACKGROUND

An increasing clinical workload and growing financial, administrative and legal burdens as well as changing demands regarding work-life balance have resulted in an increased emphasis on clinical practice at the expense of research activities by orthopaedic trauma surgeons. This has led to an overall decrease in the number of scientifically active clinicians in orthopaedic trauma surgery, which represents a serious burden on research in this field. In order to guarantee that the clinical relevance of this discipline is also mirrored in the scientific field, new concepts are needed to keep clinicians involved in research.

METHODS

Literature review and discussion of the results of a survey.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

An interdisciplinary and -professional team approach involving clinicians and basic scientists with different fields of expertise appears to be a promising method. Although differences regarding motivation, research focuses, funding rates and sources as well as inhibitory factors for research activities between basic scientists and clinicians exist, successful and long-lasting collaborations have already proven fruitful. For further implementation of the team approach, diverse prerequisites are necessary. Among those measures, institutions (e.g. societies, universities etc.) must shift the focus of their support mechanisms from independent scientist models to research team performances.

Clinician-Scientist Faculty Mentoring Program (FAME) - A New Inclusive Training Model at Penn State Increases Scholarly Productivity and Extramural Grant Funding

PURPOSE

Clinician-scientists have a high attrition rate at the junior-faculty level, before they gain independent funding. We identified the lack of skill set, clinician-scientist community and collaboration between clinician-scientists and clinicians with predominantly clinical duties, as key problems in our medium-size college of medicine.

METHODS

We designed a novel two-year educational program, the Clinician-scientist Faculty Mentoring program (FAME) specifically to target junior clinician-scientists. The program enrollment included both lab-based, "traditional" and "non-traditional" clinician-scientists, with predominantly clinical duties and limited time for research. The curriculum included the novel educational tools: Emerging technology seminars and mentored work-in-progress research seminars, integrated with mock grant review.

RESULTS

The first class enrolled 17 clinician-scientists with diverse clinical subspecialty, previous research training, and protected research time. After two years in the program, the self-assessment of FAME scholars demonstrated strong improvement in grantsmanship skills, career development, emerging technologies, and the sense of community and collaboration. Compared to the period before initiating FAME, scholars increased annual scholarly output by 65% and new extramural funding by >20-fold ($0.189 vs $4.0 million) following completion of FAME. The "traditional" clinician-scientists, who had >50% research time, increased new extramural funding by ~25-fold ($0.134 vs $3.336 million), whereas "non-traditional" clinician-scientists who had ≤50% research time increased new extramural funding by >13-fold.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that a training program tailored specifically to clinician-scientists leads to increased scholarly productivity and grant funding regardless of research background. Implementing this type of training program nationally, with inclusion of clinician-scientists with various amounts of protected time for research, will help both "traditional" and "non-traditional" clinician-scientists to obtain a substantial independent extramural funding, fulfill their scholarly potential, and enhance their sense of community. Our model would be particularly useful for small-to-medium sized academic institutions, who have a limited clinician-scientist workforce facing competing health care system needs.

Curricula, Teaching Methods, and Success Metrics of Clinician-Scientist Training Programs: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

To describe the literature on clinician-scientist training programs to inform the development of contemporary and inclusive training models.

METHOD

The authors conducted a scoping review, searching the PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase databases from database inception until May 25, 2020. Studies presenting primary research that described and evaluated clinician-scientist training programs were identified for data abstraction. On the basis of deductive and inductive methods, information about program characteristics, curricula, teaching strategies, and success metrics was extracted. The extracted variables were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

From the initial 7,544 citations retrieved and 4,974 unique abstracts screened, 81 studies were included. Of the 81 included studies, 65 (80.2%) were published between 2011 and 2020, 54 (66.7%) were conducted in the United States, and 64 (79.0%) described programs that provided broad clinician-scientist training. Few programs provided funding or protected research time or specifically addressed needs of trainees from underrepresented minority groups. Curricula emphasized research methods and knowledge dissemination, whereas patient-oriented research competencies were not described. Most programs incorporated aspects of mentorship and used multiple teaching strategies, such as direct and interactive instruction. Extrinsic metrics of success (e.g., research output) were dominant in reported program outcomes compared with markers of intrinsic success (e.g., career fulfillment).

CONCLUSIONS

Although programs are providing clinician-scientists with practical skills training, opportunities exist for curricular and pedagogic optimization that may better support this complex career path. Training programs for clinician-scientists can address contemporary issues of wellness and equity by reconsidering metrics of program success and evolving the core tenets of their education models to include equity, diversity, and inclusion principles and patient-oriented research competencies.

Ten years of NIHR research training: perceptions of the programmes: a qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVES

The UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) training programmes were created to build and sustain research capacity in healthcare. Following the training programme 10-year strategic review, this qualitative study aimed to deepen understanding of facilitators and barriers for those progressing through NIHR-supported research careers.

DESIGN

Semistructured qualitative study.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Telephone interviews conducted between May and August 2017 were digitally recorded, transcribed and analysed using Framework Approach.

SETTING

UK National Health Service (NHS) Trusts, university medical schools, District General Hospitals, Integrated Academic Training Programme centres and Research Design Services across the North East, North West, South East and South West of England, London and the Midlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Fourteen women and eight men, of whom, 14 were previous or current NIHR personal awardees (seven doctors and seven allied health professionals (AHPs) or nurses) and eight were managers (staff within clinical or university training-related roles).

RESULTS

(1) NIHR awards were viewed as transformative for research careers; (2) however, there were perceptions of a biased 'playing field'. (3) Inequalities were perceived for AHPs and nurses, those outside of established research institutes and those in 'unfashionable' specialisms. (4) While support for NIHR awards contributed to a healthy research culture, (5) short-term awards were perceived as a barrier to continuing an independent research career.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants perceived many strengths of the NIHR training programmes in terms of developing individual careers and research capacity. Areas in which improvement could enhance the ability to attract, develop and retain researcher were identified. Our findings are of relevance to schemes in other countries, where healthcare researchers experience similar challenges. Further work is needed to overcome barriers and ensure equity of access to, and success within, clinical research training schemes to sustain the research workforce needed to address future global health challenges.

The importance of motivation in selecting undergraduate medical students for extracurricular research programmes

INTRODUCTION

Extracurricular research programmes (ERPs) may contribute to reducing the current shortage in physician-scientists, but usually select students based on grades only. The question arises if students should be selected based on their motivation, regardless of their previous academic performance. Focusing on grades and lacking to take motivation into account when selecting students for ERPs might exclude an important target group when aiming to cultivate future physician-scientists. Therefore, this study compared ERP students with lower and higher previous academic performance on subsequent academic performance, ERP performance, and motivational factors.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study with undergraduate medical students who filled in a yearly questionnaire on motivational factors. Two student groups participating in an ERP were compared: students with first-year grade point average (GPA) ≥7 versus <7 on a 10-point grading scale. Linear and logistic regressions analyses were used to compare groups on subsequent academic performance (i.e. third-year GPA, in-time bachelor completion), ERP performance (i.e. drop-out, number of credits), and motivational factors (i.e. intrinsic motivation for research, research self-efficacy beliefs, perceptions of research, curiosity), while adjusting for gender and motivational factors at baseline.

RESULTS

The <7 group had significantly lower third-year GPA, and significantly higher odds for ERP drop-out than the ≥7 group. However, there was no significant between-group difference on in-time bachelor completion and the <7 group was not inferior to the ≥7 group in terms of intrinsic motivation for research, perceptions of research, and curiosity.

CONCLUSIONS

Since intrinsic motivation for research, perceptions of research, and curiosity are prerequisites of future research involvement, it seems beneficial to focus on motivation when selecting students for ERPS, allowing students with lower current academic performance to participate in ERPs as well.

First steps in the physician-scientist pipeline: a longitudinal study to examine the effects of an undergraduate extracurricular research programme

OBJECTIVES

Medicine is facing a physician-scientist shortage. By offering extracurricular research programmes (ERPs), the physician-scientist training pipeline could already start in undergraduate phases of medical training. However, previous studies into the effects of ERPs are mainly retrospective and lack baseline measurements and control groups. Therefore, the current study mimics a randomised controlled trial to examine the effects of an ERP.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study with baseline measurement and comparable control group.

SETTING

One cohort of 315 medical undergraduates in one Dutch University Medical Center are surveyed yearly. To examine the effects of the ERP on academic achievement and motivational factors, regression analyses were used to compare ERP students to students showing ERP-interest only, adjusted for relevant baseline scores.

PARTICIPANTS

Out of the 315 students of the whole cohort, 56 participated within the ERP and are thus included. These ERP students are compared with 38 students showing ERP-interest only (ie, control group).

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Academic achievement after 2 years (ie, in-time bachelor completion, bachelor grade point average (GPA)) and motivational factors after 18 months (ie, intrinsic motivation for research, research self-efficacy, perceptions of research, curiosity).

RESULTS

ERP participation is related to a higher odds of obtaining a bachelor degree in the appointed amount of time (adjusted OR=2.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 10.52). Furthermore, starting the ERP resulted in higher levels of intrinsic motivation for research, also after adjusting for gender, age, first-year GPA and motivational baseline scores (β=0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.63). No effect was found on research self-efficacy beliefs, perceptions of research and curiosity.

CONCLUSIONS

Previous research suggested that intrinsic motivation is related to short-term and long-term research engagement. As our findings indicate that starting the ERP is related to increased levels of intrinsic motivation for research, ERPs for undergraduates could be seen as an important first step in the physician-scientist pipeline.

Workforce capacity for the care of patients with kidney failure across world countries and regions

INTRODUCTION

An effective workforce is essential for optimal care of all forms of chronic diseases. The objective of this study was to assess workforce capacity for kidney failure (KF) care across world countries and regions.

METHODS

Data were collected from published online sources and a survey was administered online to key stakeholders. All country-level data were analysed by International Society of Nephrology region and World Bank income classification.

RESULTS

The general healthcare workforce varies by income level: high-income countries have more healthcare workers per 10 000 population (physicians: 30.3; nursing personnel: 79.2; pharmacists: 7.2; surgeons: 3.5) than low-income countries (physicians: 0.9; nursing personnel: 5.0; pharmacists: 0.1; surgeons: 0.03). A total of 160 countries responded to survey questions pertaining to the workforce for the management of patients with KF. The physicians primarily responsible for providing care to patients with KF are nephrologists in 92% of countries. Global nephrologist density is 10.0 per million population (pmp) and nephrology trainee density is 1.4 pmp. High-income countries reported the highest densities of nephrologists and nephrology trainees (23.2 pmp and 3.8 pmp, respectively), whereas low-income countries reported the lowest densities (0.2 pmp and 0.1 pmp, respectively). Low-income countries were most likely to report shortages of all types of healthcare providers, including nephrologists, surgeons, radiologists and nurses.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this global survey demonstrate critical shortages in workforce capacity to care for patients with KF across world countries and regions. National and international policies will be required to build a workforce capacity that can effectively address the growing burden of KF and deliver optimal care.

Clinician-Scientists: Can They Survive in the Modern Era?

Clinician-scientists are commonly characterized as health care professionals who are proficient in both research and clinical practice. Their dual expertise positions them to play a vital role in translating research outcomes to clinical practice. However, economic changes in the past few decades are threatening their very survival. The purposes of this article are to review some of the economic forces that pose the greatest risks to clinician-scientists in the modern era and to glean lessons from the business world in overcoming these challenges. Health care consolidation and decreasing reimbursements are putting increasing financial pressure on academic institutions, leaving them more inclined to cut back on departmental research support. Innovative companies commit a certain percentage of their revenue to research and discovery. Academic institutions should similarly view their research budget as research and discovery that will sustain the future growth of radiology. They should quantify and define expectations for academic productivity, focus on return on investment, and bolster the infrastructure to foster commercial partnerships that can provide additional revenue to support the research mission. Success in academics does not occur by accident. It requires more than individual talent and hard work. It also requires institutional leaders who are committed to developing future academic leaders and supporting innovation.

Why clinical training in China should improve: a cross-sectional study of MD graduates

BACKGROUND

China is experiencing major medical education reforms that include establishing national training standards, standards for health professionals, and advanced health delivery system requirements. Graduate medical education (GME) is being piloted as a merger of Doctor of Medicine (MD) with PhD programs to improve academic research and clinical training. However, the academic degree-centred system has led to a preoccupation with research rather than clinical training. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of quality information regarding the clinical training of MD graduates from Chinese medical schools. To fill this gap, this general investigation aims to provide the perspective of recent MD graduates in China for the different subspecialties of clinical training as experienced in different contexts.

METHODS

There were 432 MD graduates who participated in an online survey regarding their clinical training. Information collected included overall satisfaction, educational supervision, supervised learning events, curriculum coverage, local teaching, teamwork, educational governance, workload, supportiveness of the environment, feedback, clinical experience, patient safety, handovers, and reporting systems.

RESULTS

Only 37.4% reported satisfaction with the overall clinical training quality; 54.6% rated the informal and bedside quality as "good"; 64.4% reported they knew who provided clinical supervision; but only 35.5% rated the quality of clinical supervision as high; 51.8% reported that they judged senior physicians as "not competent"; 41.9% agreed that the staff treated each other respectfully; 97.4% admitted that they worked beyond the mandatory hours and claimed they were regularly short of sleep; 84.2% raised concerns about patient safety; 45.3% reported that they received regular informal feedback; 48.1% believed that their concerns about education and training would be addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the quality of clinical training for MD graduates should be improved. While the overall satisfaction with the teaching quality was acceptable, the quality of many clinical training aspects scored poorly. A major problem seems an undue focus on research in MD/PhD training at the cost of the quality of clinical training, due to career perspectives that undervalue clinical competence. The findings of this study should benefit from a deeper investigation to understand the causes and possible remediation. Suggestions include defining subspecialties and training lengths; monitoring, evaluation, and integration SST with MD degree; providing funds or rewards for academic and clinical training; establishing supervising teams to guide clinical training; and establishing physician scientist task force to help overcome challenges.

Physician-scientist or basic scientist? Exploring the nature of clinicians' research engagement

Theoretical understanding of what motivates clinician researchers has met with some success in launching research careers, but it does not account for professional identification as a factor determining sustained research engagement over the long-term. Deeper understanding of clinicians' research-related motivation may better foster their sustained research engagement post-training and, by extension, the advancement of medicine and health outcomes. This study used an integrated theoretical framework (Social Cognitive Career Theory and Professional Identity Formation) and appreciative inquiry to explore the interplay of professional identification and research context in shaping post-training research success narratives. To foreground professional identification, 19 research-active clinicians and 17 basic scientists served as interviewees. A multi-institutional, multi-national design was used to explore how contextual factors shape external valuation of research success. The findings suggest that research-active clinicians do not identify as the career scientists implied by the modern physician-scientist construct and the goal of many clinician research-training programs. Their primary identification as care providers shapes their definition of research success around extending their clinical impact; institutional expectations and prevailing healthcare concerns that value this aim facilitate their sustained research engagement. Integrated developmental and organizational interventions adaptive to research context and conducive to a wider range of medical inquiry may better leverage clinicians' direct involvement in patient care and advance progress toward human health and well-being.

Enabling visibility of the clinician-scientists' knowledge broker role: a participatory design research in the Dutch nursing-home sector

Background

A group of clinician-scientists and managers working within a Dutch academic network, experienced difficulties in clearly defining the knowledge broker role of the clinician-scientists. They found no role clarity in literature, nor did they find tools or methods suitable for clinician-scientists. Clarifying role expectations and providing accountability for funding these knowledge broker positions was difficult. The aim of this research was to design a theory-informed tool that allowed clinician-scientists to make their knowledge broker role visible.

Methods

A participatory design research was conducted in three phases, over a 21-month period, with a design group consisting of an external independent researcher, clinician-scientists and their managers from within the academic network. Phase 1 constituted a literature review, a context analysis and a needs analysis. Phase 2 constituted the design and development of a suitable tool and phase 3 was an evaluation of the tool’s perceived usefulness. Throughout the research process, the researcher logged the theoretic basis for all design decisions.

Results

The clinician-scientist’s knowledge broker role is a knowledge-intensive role and work-tasks associated with this role are not automatically visible (phase 1). A tool (the SP-tool) was developed in Microsoft Excel. This allowed clinician-scientists to log their knowledge broker activities as distinct from their clinical work and research related activities (phase 2). The SP-tool contributed to the clinician-scientists’ ability to make their knowledge broker role visible to themselves and their stakeholders (phase 3). The theoretic contribution of the design research is a conceptual model of professionalisation of the clinician-scientist’s knowledge broker role. This model presents the relationship between work visibility and the clarification of functions of the knowledge broker role. In the professionalisation of knowledge-intensive work, visibility contributes to the definition of clinician-scientists broker functions, which is an element necessary for the professionalisation of an occupation.

Conclusions

The SP-tool that was developed in this research, contributes to creating work visibility of the clinician-scientists’ knowledge broker role. Further research using the SP-tool could establish a clearer description of the knowledge broker role at the day-to-day professional level and improved ability to support this role within organisations.

Is It Possible for Registered Nurses and Physicians to Combine Research and Clinical Work to Facilitate Evidence-Based Practice?

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based patient care requires clinicians to make decisions based on the best available evidence and researchers to provide new scientific knowledge. Clinician-scientists (i.e., registered nurses [RNs] and physicians with a PhD) make important contributions to health care; yet, their roles are not fully understood, supported, or recognized by healthcare leaders. Only a few studies have addressed the factors that enable RNs and physicians to simultaneously pursue both clinical work and research after earning a PhD.

AIM

To explore what factors have a bearing on the ability of RNs and physicians to pursue research and clinical work simultaneously after earning a PhD.

METHODS

The study used a qualitative design based on open-ended, in-depth interviews. Data were analyzed using conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

Analysis of the data yielded a broad range of factors that RNs and physicians perceived to either facilitate or hinder continued research while simultaneously undertaking clinical work. Most of the perceived barriers were due to factors external to the individual. Several factors applied to both professions yet differed in impact. Factors mentioned as fundamental to continued research were financial support and allocated time for research. Maintenance of a good relationship with academia and support from management were also considered to be important. In addition, personal factors, such as motivation to pursue a research career after obtaining a PhD, were influential.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

A supportive infrastructure is important for enabling clinician-scientists to pursue research after earning a PhD. Creating favorable conditions for RNs and physicians to combine research with clinical work can facilitate evidence-based practice. This information can be used for interventions aimed at improving the conditions for clinician-scientists.

Clinician-Scientists in-and-between Research and Practice: How Social Identity Shapes Brokerage

Clinician-scientists (CSs) are vital in connecting the worlds of research and practice. Yet, there is little empirical insight into how CSs perceive and act upon their in-and-between position between these socio-culturally distinct worlds. To better understand and support CSs' training and career development, this study aims to gain insight into CSs' social identity and brokerage. The authors conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 17, purposively sampled, CSs to elicit information on their social identity and brokerage. The CSs differ in how they perceive their social identity. Some CSs described their social identity strongly as either a research or clinical identity (dominant research or clinical identity). Other CSs described combined research and clinical identities, which might sometimes be compartmentalised, intersected or merged (non-dominant-identity). In the types of brokerage that they employ, all CSs act as representatives. CSs with a non-dominant identity mostly act as liaison and show considerable variability in their repertoire, including representative and gatekeeper. CSs with a dominant identity have less diversity in their brokerage types. Those with a dominant research identity typically act as a gatekeeper. Combining lenses of social identity theory and brokerage types helps understand CSs who have a dual position in-and-between the worlds of clinical practice and research. Professional development programs should explicitly address CSs' professional identities and subsequent desired brokerage. Research and policy should aim to clarify and leverage the position of CSs in-and-between research and practice.

Re-examining physician-scientist training through the prism of the discovery-invention cycle

The training of physician-scientists lies at the heart of future medical research. In this commentary, we apply Narayanamurti and Odumosu’s framework of the “discovery-invention cycle” to analyze the structure and outcomes of the integrated MD/PhD program. We argue that the linear model of “bench-to-bedside” research, which is also reflected in the present training of MD/PhDs, merits continual re-evaluation to capitalize on the richness of opportunities arising in clinical medicine. In addition to measuring objective career outcomes, as existing research has done, we suggest that detailed characterization of researchers’ efforts using both qualitative and quantitative techniques is necessary to understand if dual-degree training is being utilized. As an example, we propose that the application of machine learning and data science to corpora of biomedical literature and anonymized clinical data might allow us to see if there are objective “signatures” of research uniquely enabled by MD/PhD training. We close by proposing several hypotheses for shaping physician-scientist training, the relative merits of which could be assessed using the techniques proposed above. Our overarching message is the importance of deeply understanding individual career trajectories as well as characterizing organizational details and cultural nuances to drive new policy which shapes the future of the physician-scientist workforce.