Barriers and facilitators to conducting research by early career psychiatrists: a literature review
Data publikacji: 13 paź 2019
Zakres stron: 135 - 154
Otrzymano: 08 sie 2019
Przyjęty: 26 sie 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/gp-2019-0018
Słowa kluczowe
© 2019 Katja Koelkebeck et al. published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
Figure 1
Included studies_
| Authors | Country | Study design | N participants (response rate) | Facilitators for research | Barriers for research | Type of bias / limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balon & Singh, 2001 | USA, Canada | Cross-sectional survey | 70/126 (58.7%) chairs of departments of psychiatry | Trainees should be: - made aware of opportunities to join research tracks during their orientation to the program - introduced to researchers in their department and made familiar with their work - assigned to spend time in research labs to familiarise themselves with the ‘working conditions’ of research - receive teaching about the clinical implications of research - fears and apprehension about joining research tracks should be addressed - research career opportunities should be discussed | - only ~ 60% of chairs returned the questionnaire - questionnaire did not ask for the absolute number of residents, only for percentages (e.g., ‘How many % of residents joined a research track?’) - only those curriculums with a reasonable training program in psychiatric research could have responded - anonymous responses might include academic or non-academic institutions - the university vs. non-university research training issue was not addressed | |
| USA | Findings and recommendations of an expert consensus workgroup | - establishing formal research methods teaching - more funding for structured research tracks for medical trainees - fostering of acceptance for clinical pathways by explicit inclusion of research tracks | The loss of promising researchers during the period of transition from research training to independent research funding | - | ||
| USA | Cross- sectional survey | 399/815 (49.0%) trainees and faculty members | - lack of appreciation of research in psychiatric curricula | - the survey was sent to Training Directors, who might have chosen to not hand over questionnaires to the residents | ||
| Worldwide | Literature review | Medical students, psychiatry trainees, psychiatry fellows/ postdoctoral, psychiatry faculty/ attending/consultant | - participating in research when a medical student or psychiatry trainee - mentoring | - focused on adult psychiatry, search terms ‘psychiatry’ AND ‘research’ were not followed-up due to the high number of hits | ||
| UK | Cross-sectional survey, interviews | 157/227 (69.2%) mentees (clinician scientist fellows and clinical lecturers) and mentors (professors) | Impact of mentoring: - mentee’s age - the frequency and duration of meetings - mentee’s expectations - the quality of the mentee - mentor interaction - the perceived role of the mentor | - as the survey was anonymous, pairing of mentor and mentee data was not possible - investigation took place early in the mentoring process, better peer-mentor relationships might have been established later on - data collected only cross-sectionally | ||
| Croatia | Cross-sectional survey | 66 trainees from 15 psychiatric hospitals, clinics and wards in general hospitals | lack of practical psychotherapy inadequate functioning of the mentorship system lack of funding resources | - variables other than the residency training were not assessed (e.g., socioeconomic, marital status, etc.) and may have influenced results | ||
| Canada | Cross-sectional survey | 207/853 (23.4%) psychiatry trainees | Exposing and engaging psychiatry trainees in research as early as possible appears key to promoting future research interest Psychiatry residency programs and research tracks could consider: - emphasising research training initiatives - protected research time early in residency | Putatively: - lack of continuity in research time during potentially productive years - competing for grants with graduating PhD students from other disciplines - relative lack of research mentoring | - study was primarily aimed at residents with an interest in geriatrics - some potential predictor variables (e.g., level of trainees’ debts, academic productivity) have not been collected in the study - causality is difficult to infer from a cross-sectional study - multiple comparisons may have contributed to alpha inflation - response rate of 24.3% | |
| Saudi Arabia | Cross-sectional survey | 191/207 (92.3%) trainees registered with the Saudi Council of Health Specialty Programs | Lack of : - research training (93.2%) time (89.5%) - supervisors (73.3%) - work-related stress (83.2%) | - high rate of male participants (M: 128, F: 63) might inhibit the generalisability of data | ||
| UK | Cross-sectional survey | 122/400 (30%) trainee members of the British Geriatrics Society (BGS), 30% response rate | Systematically provide basic information on how to enter into the early stages of research | no clear idea of a topic to research (70%) did not know how to develop an idea (64%) did not know how to get funding (62%) Difficulties during research: - funding - selection of project topic | response rate of 30% | |
| Serbia | Cross-sectional study | 51 ECPs | government support less overall challenges | - opinion that psychiatry is ́second best́ career - no education on research | - small number of residents (51) participated - residents of only one hospital | |
| Portugal | Cross-sectional survey | 80/193 (41.5%) psychiatric trainees | - lack of access or support from supervisors, other consultants or professionals (75.0%) - lack of time (15.4%) - lack of interest (9.6%) | - most respondents from 1st or 2nd year of education | ||
| Schnitzlein et al., 2014 | USA | Opinion paper | - mentorship - scholarship - research - career planning and development - openness to experience - networking - responsibility seeking | - | ||
| USA | Cross-sectional survey | 127/189 (67%) senior trainees | Allocating funding to ensure sustained and secure careers | Debt load | - respondents were not explicitly asked about their research interest at the beginning of residency, but only toward the end - bias: participants were researchers in a higher number of cases - gender imbalance (F: 67.9%) - only residents have been investigated - not all programs have been investigated - data not corrected for multiple comparisons | |
| Torous & Padmanabhan, 2014 | USA | Essay | Getting experience in research early in training to balance research time as well as clinical work | - lack of (uninterrupted) time - problems in finding a suitable research question | - | |
| France | Cross-sectional survey | 79/125 (63.2%) teachers, professors, hospital practitioners | Insufficient number of academic practitioners | - bias: overrepresentation of residents with interest in research - satisfaction with education reflects an individual perception and is therefore less objective | ||
| Williams & Curran, 1998 | UK | Cross-sectional survey | 57/99 (57.6%) senior registrars working in psychiatry | - clinical work intrudes (54%) - lack of time (53%) - uncertainty on how (30%) to proceed - lack of support from senior staff (30%) - lack of resources (30%) - own lack of interest (21%) - put off by the idea of writing a protocol (12%) | - bias: respondents may over-represent those actively taking part in research |