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

Autor: Albert, Nancy M., Chipps, Esther, Klein, Colleen J., Briskin, Isaac, Falkenberg Olson, Ann C., Liu Hand, Linda, Harmon, Michelle M., Heitschmidt, Mary, Talsma, AkkeNeel
Předmět:
Zdroj: Journal of Clinical Nursing (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.); Feb2022, Vol. 31 Issue 3/4, p435-444, 10p
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Databáze: Complementary Index
Externí odkaz: