Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

How professional development can be supported for health and care research methodologists: results of the PROfesSionnal develoPmEnt for Research methodologists (PROSPER) e-Delphi and consensus study

View through CrossRef
ObjectiveResearch methodologists play a pivotal role in health and care research, yet they face many challenges relating to their professional development. The PROfesSional develoPmEnt for Research methodologists study was designed to understand and prioritise the professional development and capacity-building needs of research methodologists in the UK.Design, setting and participantsThree-round electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) survey, with input from stakeholders in the development of the candidate list of professional development aspects followed by a national consensus meeting of health and care research methodologists in the UK.Main outcome measuresRated importance of each professional development aspects on a 9-point scale.Results207 participants gave their consent to participate in the e-Delphi survey. 189 (91%) completed round 1 and 76% completed all three rounds. In round 1, 35 professional development aspects were rated by priority, with 21 additional aspects suggested by participants and included in subsequent rounds. Rounds 2 and 3 involved rating 56 aspects: 22 achieved ‘consensus in’, 20 were ‘consensus out’ and 14 had ‘no consensus’. The top ‘consensus in’ aspects were supportive line managers, clear career pathways and promotion criteria and time for training. A consensus meeting with 18 participants rerated the 14 ‘no consensus’ aspects, adding three more to the final list. The final list includes 25 priority areas for research methodologists’ professional development.ConclusionsThis study has established the priorities from a professional development perspective for research methodologists. These priorities particularly focus on the importance of support from others, training and development, the value and recognition of the role, employer/contractual agreements and methodological research funding. The list of priorities could help individuals, managers, employers and research funders to improve professional development opportunities and could form the start of the development of a ‘methodologists’ charter’.
Title: How professional development can be supported for health and care research methodologists: results of the PROfesSionnal develoPmEnt for Research methodologists (PROSPER) e-Delphi and consensus study
Description:
ObjectiveResearch methodologists play a pivotal role in health and care research, yet they face many challenges relating to their professional development.
The PROfesSional develoPmEnt for Research methodologists study was designed to understand and prioritise the professional development and capacity-building needs of research methodologists in the UK.
Design, setting and participantsThree-round electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) survey, with input from stakeholders in the development of the candidate list of professional development aspects followed by a national consensus meeting of health and care research methodologists in the UK.
Main outcome measuresRated importance of each professional development aspects on a 9-point scale.
Results207 participants gave their consent to participate in the e-Delphi survey.
189 (91%) completed round 1 and 76% completed all three rounds.
In round 1, 35 professional development aspects were rated by priority, with 21 additional aspects suggested by participants and included in subsequent rounds.
Rounds 2 and 3 involved rating 56 aspects: 22 achieved ‘consensus in’, 20 were ‘consensus out’ and 14 had ‘no consensus’.
The top ‘consensus in’ aspects were supportive line managers, clear career pathways and promotion criteria and time for training.
A consensus meeting with 18 participants rerated the 14 ‘no consensus’ aspects, adding three more to the final list.
The final list includes 25 priority areas for research methodologists’ professional development.
ConclusionsThis study has established the priorities from a professional development perspective for research methodologists.
These priorities particularly focus on the importance of support from others, training and development, the value and recognition of the role, employer/contractual agreements and methodological research funding.
The list of priorities could help individuals, managers, employers and research funders to improve professional development opportunities and could form the start of the development of a ‘methodologists’ charter’.

Related Results

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The UP Manila Health Policy Development Hub recognizes the invaluable contribution of the participants in theseries of roundtable discussions listed below: RTD: Beyond Hospit...
Autonomy on Trial
Autonomy on Trial
Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash Abstract This paper critically examines how US bioethics and health law conceptualize patient autonomy, contrasting the rights-based, individualist...
Ehealth Communication
Ehealth Communication
Ehealth, also known as E-health, is a relatively new area of health communication inquiry that examines the development, implementation, and application of a broad range of evolvin...
Education and Professional Development Training of Methodologists: Based on the Research Materials
Education and Professional Development Training of Methodologists: Based on the Research Materials
The article is devoted to the results of the research “Personnel of Methodologists of the Central Libraries of the Subjects of the Russian Federation”, conducted by the Center for ...
5.H. Round table: Health care systems, health service provision, and equity in health
5.H. Round table: Health care systems, health service provision, and equity in health
Abstract   The starting point for this round table is the observation that the research areas of health systems, health services...
Monika Rizkiana_165100061
Monika Rizkiana_165100061
A.STUDI KASUS ( SK )Pertanyaan Type C : Jawaban : Keterangan Bentuk :Orang Bergandengan : Artinya terus bersatu saling bergandengan dan saling menghargai.Kedua Tel...
Housing Improvements for Health and Associated Socio‐Economic Outcomes: A Systematic Review
Housing Improvements for Health and Associated Socio‐Economic Outcomes: A Systematic Review
Poor housing is associated with poor health. This suggests that improving housing conditions might lead to improved health for residents. This review searched widely for studies fr...
Parkinson’s disease and palliative care: a quality of care Delphi study
Parkinson’s disease and palliative care: a quality of care Delphi study
ObjectivesExtending palliative care services to those with long-term neurological conditions is a current aim of UK health policy. Lack of holistic guidelines for palliative and en...

Back to Top