A cross-sectional study of United States Academic-clinical research collaborations: Characteristics, resources, benefits and outcomes.

Autor: Albert NM; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA., Chipps E; The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, The Ohio State University College of Nursing, Columbus, OH, USA., Klein CJ; OSF HealthCare, Peoria, IL, USA., Briskin I; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA., Falkenberg Olson AC; Gundersen Health System-Gundersen Medical Foundation, La Crosse, WI, USA., Liu Hand L; University of Iowa College of Nursing, Iowa City, IA, USA., Harmon MM; John D. Dingell VA Medical Center, Detroit, MI, USA., Heitschmidt M; Rush System for Health, Chicago, IL, USA., Talsma A; University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee College of Nursing, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of clinical nursing [J Clin Nurs] 2022 Feb; Vol. 31 (3-4), pp. 435-444. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Dec 31.
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15597
Abstrakt: Aims: The aims of the study were to compare characteristics, resources, benefits and outcomes of academic-clinical collaborations of nursing researcher leaders from academic, clinical and joint-employer sites.
Background: Few research-based publications addressed academic-clinical research collaborations. New knowledge could increase nursing and multidisciplinary research productivity, including implementation science.
Design: An anonymous survey using a 40-item questionnaire.
Methods: Information letters with a link to the questionnaire were emailed to United States nursing research leaders. Data were grouped by institution type: academic, clinical or joint-employer. Analyses included Kruskal-Wallis tests for ordered responses, Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical responses and Cohen's Kappa agreement statistic for expected and actual time devoted to research. STROBE guidelines were followed.
Results: Of 120 respondents from academic (n = 60; 50.0%), clinical (n = 53; 41.2%) and joint-employer (n = 7; 5.8%) sites, 78.3%, 92.3% and 100%, respectively, were from metropolitan areas. Mean (SD) priority for active collaborations was higher at joint-employer sites; p = .002. Clinical sites were more likely to have directors of evidence-based practice (p = .031) and informatics (p = .008) and librarians (p = .029). Sites with collaborations were more likely to have access to research subjects (p = .008) and post-award research account management (p = .045). By collaboration status, there were no differences in the number of ethics board-approved studies. Collaborating site benefits were perceived to be executive leadership support (p = .003), greater research engagement by clinical nurses (p = .048), more co-authored publications (p = .048) and more abstracts accepted at national meetings (p = .044). Despite more resources and perceived benefits, outcomes did not differ by collaboration status.
Conclusions: Sites with and without academic-clinical research collaborations differed; however, outcomes were similar. Future efforts should focus on nurse scientist collaboration to address important clinical questions aimed at improving clinical outcomes.
Relevance to Clinical Practice: Despite some successful outcomes, potential benefits of academic-clinical research collaborations have not been fully actualised.
(© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: