Leadership development programmes in healthcare research: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-aggregation.

Autor:	Kingsley-Smith H; Oxford University Clinical Academic Graduate School, University of Oxford Medical Sciences Division, Oxford, UK harry.kingsley-smith@education.ox.ac.uk oscar.lyons@gtc.ox.ac.uk., Farrier CE; Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford Medical Sciences Division, Oxford, UK., Foran D; Oxford University Clinical Academic Graduate School, University of Oxford Medical Sciences Division, Oxford, UK., Kotze K; Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford Medical Sciences Division, Oxford, UK., Mahtani K; Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford Medical Sciences Division, Oxford, UK., Short S; Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford Medical Sciences Division, Oxford, UK., Scott AM; Bond University Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia., Lyons O; Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford Medical Sciences Division, Oxford, UK harry.kingsley-smith@education.ox.ac.uk oscar.lyons@gtc.ox.ac.uk.; Green Templeton College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	BMJ leader [BMJ Lead] 2024 Jul 11. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jul 11.
DOI:	10.1136/leader-2024-000976
Abstrakt:	Background: Academic institutions benefit from researchers adopting leadership positions and, subsequently, leadership development programmes are of increasing importance. Despite this, no evaluation of the evidence basis for leadership development programmes for healthcare researchers has been conducted. In this study, the authors reviewed leadership development programmes for healthcare researchers and aimed to identify their impact and the factors which influenced this impact. Methods: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO between January 2000 and January 2023 for evaluations of leadership development programmes with healthcare researchers. The authors synthesised results through exploratory meta-analysis and meta-aggregation and used the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for Qualitative Studies to identify higher-reliability studies. Results: 48 studies met inclusion criteria, of which approximately half (22) met the criteria for higher reliability. The median critical appraisal score was 10.5/18 for the MERSQI and 3.5/10 for the JBI. Common causes of low study quality appraisal related to study design, data analysis and reporting. Evaluations principally consisted of questionnaires measuring self-assessed outcomes. Interventions were primarily focused on junior academics. Overall, 163/168 categorised programme outcomes were positive. Coaching, experiential learning/project work and mentoring were associated with increased organisational outcomes. Conclusion: Educational methods appeared to be more important for organisational outcomes than specific educational content. To facilitate organisational outcomes, educational methods should include coaching, project work and mentoring. Programmes delivered by external faculty were less likely to be associated with organisational outcomes than those with internal or mixed faculty, but this needs further investigation. Finally, improving evaluation design will allow educators and evaluators to more effectively understand factors which are reliably associated with organisational outcomes of leadership development. Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared. (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu