Barriers and Enablers of Primary Healthcare Professionals in Health Research Engagement: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Mark Matheson, Ian W Skinner, Arianne Vehagen, Sean Mc Auliffe, Peter Malliaras
{"title":"Barriers and Enablers of Primary Healthcare Professionals in Health Research Engagement: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.","authors":"Mark Matheson, Ian W Skinner, Arianne Vehagen, Sean Mc Auliffe, Peter Malliaras","doi":"10.1111/nhs.70022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Health professional engagement ensures relevant, clinically focused research that informs evidence-based care. Research shows health professionals may not engage optimally in research. Understanding barriers and enablers influencing participation is necessary to enhance engagement. This systematic review explores these factors among primary healthcare professionals. We searched peer-reviewed studies using CINAHL, Medline, and SCOPUS in February 2023, updated in June 2024. The review followed PRISMA and the ENTREQ checklist. Studies included those published in English, reporting factors influencing engagement among primary healthcare professionals. Qualitative data were extracted and thematically synthesized. Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. Nineteen studies were included. Enablers include individual positive attitudes and a scholarly environment. Barriers include negative attitudes, an unconducive environment, and system constraints. Primary health professionals view research engagement positively, recognizing its potential to enhance health outcomes, professional growth, and business performance. Balancing clinical responsibilities, workload and research is challenging. Targeted strategies promoting partnerships and stakeholder involvement can foster a scholarly environment and empower research engagement.</p>","PeriodicalId":49730,"journal":{"name":"Nursing & Health Sciences","volume":"27 1","pages":"e70022"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11718354/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing & Health Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.70022","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Health professional engagement ensures relevant, clinically focused research that informs evidence-based care. Research shows health professionals may not engage optimally in research. Understanding barriers and enablers influencing participation is necessary to enhance engagement. This systematic review explores these factors among primary healthcare professionals. We searched peer-reviewed studies using CINAHL, Medline, and SCOPUS in February 2023, updated in June 2024. The review followed PRISMA and the ENTREQ checklist. Studies included those published in English, reporting factors influencing engagement among primary healthcare professionals. Qualitative data were extracted and thematically synthesized. Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. Nineteen studies were included. Enablers include individual positive attitudes and a scholarly environment. Barriers include negative attitudes, an unconducive environment, and system constraints. Primary health professionals view research engagement positively, recognizing its potential to enhance health outcomes, professional growth, and business performance. Balancing clinical responsibilities, workload and research is challenging. Targeted strategies promoting partnerships and stakeholder involvement can foster a scholarly environment and empower research engagement.

初级卫生保健专业人员参与卫生研究的障碍和促进因素:定性研究的系统回顾。
卫生专业人员的参与确保了相关的、以临床为重点的研究,为循证护理提供信息。研究表明,卫生专业人员可能无法以最佳方式参与研究。了解影响参与的障碍和促成因素对于加强参与是必要的。本系统综述探讨了初级卫生保健专业人员的这些因素。我们检索了2023年2月更新于2024年6月的CINAHL、Medline和SCOPUS的同行评议研究。审查遵循PRISMA和ENTREQ检查表。研究包括用英语发表的研究,报告了影响初级保健专业人员参与的因素。提取定性数据并进行主题合成。使用乔安娜布里格斯研究所关键评估清单评估方法学质量。纳入了19项研究。促成因素包括个人的积极态度和学术环境。障碍包括消极的态度、不利的环境和制度约束。初级卫生专业人员积极地看待研究参与,认识到其提高卫生成果、专业成长和业务绩效的潜力。平衡临床责任、工作量和研究是具有挑战性的。促进伙伴关系和利益相关者参与的有针对性的战略可以营造一个学术环境,增强研究参与。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
91
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: NHS has a multidisciplinary focus and broad scope and a particular focus on the translation of research into clinical practice, inter-disciplinary and multidisciplinary work, primary health care, health promotion, health education, management of communicable and non-communicable diseases, implementation of technological innovations and inclusive multicultural approaches to health services and care.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信