The benefits for health care staff of involvement in applied health research: a scoping review.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Andria Hanbury, Emily Parker, Rebecca Lawton, Jayne Marran, Jane Schofield, Laurie Cave, Lynn McVey, Emma Eyers, Peter Van der Graaf, Roman Kislov
{"title":"The benefits for health care staff of involvement in applied health research: a scoping review.","authors":"Andria Hanbury, Emily Parker, Rebecca Lawton, Jayne Marran, Jane Schofield, Laurie Cave, Lynn McVey, Emma Eyers, Peter Van der Graaf, Roman Kislov","doi":"10.1186/s12961-025-01365-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Initiatives are increasingly encouraging health and social care staff involvement in research, with evidence for patient and organisational level benefits. There is less evidence of the benefits for staff and whether this varies by type of involvement. This scoping review aimed to identify the different ways staff are involved in applied health research, the benefits experienced, and whether this varies by type of involvement. This will help to inform leaders in service organisations, funders, and researchers about how to maximise such benefits.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The scoping review followed the JBI methodology. Four databases were searched: CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus. Grey literature was identified via Google, Google Scholar and relevant websites. Records had to be UK-based, published in English between 2003 and 2023 and cover applied health and care research, health care staff involvement and report on benefits. Text was extracted from records, coded afterwards, and quality checked. The benefits were distilled by four research active health care staff. Descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis were used to report the results.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>In total, 49 records were reviewed, 42 records were from the database search and 7 from the grey literature search. Records were most commonly journal articles (n = 44), covering multiple care settings (n = 15) and mixed professional groups (n = 24), used qualitative methods (n = 22) and focussed on clinical academic roles (n = 21). Six benefits of involvement in research were distilled: personal fulfilment, general competencies/skills, connections/networks, opportunities for learning, opportunities for leading improvements in practice, and using evidence more effectively. Records that focussed on the more intensive clinical academic roles reported more examples of opportunities for leading improvements in practice, and the building of connections and social support. Non-clinical academic records more frequently reported that involvement in research provided opportunities for learning.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings support efforts to involve staff in research, with a range of benefits associated with enhanced job satisfaction, even when research involvement is in a less intense form, such as participation in a study. These findings can be used to encourage involvement, with recommendations for future research to review the benefits for social care staff, and to examine more directly the effect on staff wellbeing and retention.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"23 1","pages":"104"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12359832/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01365-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Initiatives are increasingly encouraging health and social care staff involvement in research, with evidence for patient and organisational level benefits. There is less evidence of the benefits for staff and whether this varies by type of involvement. This scoping review aimed to identify the different ways staff are involved in applied health research, the benefits experienced, and whether this varies by type of involvement. This will help to inform leaders in service organisations, funders, and researchers about how to maximise such benefits.

Methods: The scoping review followed the JBI methodology. Four databases were searched: CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus. Grey literature was identified via Google, Google Scholar and relevant websites. Records had to be UK-based, published in English between 2003 and 2023 and cover applied health and care research, health care staff involvement and report on benefits. Text was extracted from records, coded afterwards, and quality checked. The benefits were distilled by four research active health care staff. Descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis were used to report the results.

Findings: In total, 49 records were reviewed, 42 records were from the database search and 7 from the grey literature search. Records were most commonly journal articles (n = 44), covering multiple care settings (n = 15) and mixed professional groups (n = 24), used qualitative methods (n = 22) and focussed on clinical academic roles (n = 21). Six benefits of involvement in research were distilled: personal fulfilment, general competencies/skills, connections/networks, opportunities for learning, opportunities for leading improvements in practice, and using evidence more effectively. Records that focussed on the more intensive clinical academic roles reported more examples of opportunities for leading improvements in practice, and the building of connections and social support. Non-clinical academic records more frequently reported that involvement in research provided opportunities for learning.

Conclusions: These findings support efforts to involve staff in research, with a range of benefits associated with enhanced job satisfaction, even when research involvement is in a less intense form, such as participation in a study. These findings can be used to encourage involvement, with recommendations for future research to review the benefits for social care staff, and to examine more directly the effect on staff wellbeing and retention.

Abstract Image

卫生保健人员参与应用卫生研究的好处:范围审查。
背景:越来越多的倡议鼓励卫生和社会护理人员参与研究,有证据表明患者和组织层面的利益。关于员工受益的证据较少,以及这是否因参与类型而异。这项范围审查的目的是确定工作人员参与应用卫生研究的不同方式、所获得的益处,以及这是否因参与的类型而异。这将有助于告知服务机构的领导者、资助者和研究人员如何使这些利益最大化。方法:采用JBI方法进行范围综述。检索了四个数据库:CINAHL、MEDLINE、PsycINFO和Scopus。灰色文献通过谷歌、谷歌Scholar及相关网站确定。记录必须以英国为基础,在2003年至2023年期间以英文出版,并涵盖应用卫生和保健研究、卫生保健工作人员参与和福利报告。从记录中提取文本,然后进行编码,并进行质量检查。这些益处是由四位研究活跃的卫生保健人员提炼出来的。采用描述性统计和叙述性综合方法报道结果。结果:共纳入49篇文献,其中数据库检索42篇,灰色文献检索7篇。记录为最常见的期刊文章(n = 44),涵盖多种护理环境(n = 15)和混合专业群体(n = 24),使用定性方法(n = 22),并关注临床学术角色(n = 21)。参与研究的六大好处是:个人成就感、一般能力/技能、联系/网络、学习机会、在实践中领导改进的机会,以及更有效地利用证据。专注于更密集的临床学术角色的记录报告了更多在实践中领导改进的机会,以及建立联系和社会支持的例子。非临床学术记录更频繁地报告说,参与研究提供了学习的机会。结论:这些发现支持了让员工参与研究的努力,即使是在研究参与程度较低的情况下,比如参与一项研究,也能带来与提高工作满意度相关的一系列好处。这些发现可以用来鼓励参与,并为未来的研究提供建议,以审查社会护理人员的利益,并更直接地检查对员工福利和保留的影响。
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
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信