Factors influencing the utilization of doctoral research findings at a university in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: Views of academic leaders

BACKGROUND

Translation of health research findings into policy remains a challenge in sub-Saharan Africa. Factors influencing health research utilization are poorly described in literature. Therefore, identifying factors that influence the utilization of research findings for policy formulation is essential to facilitate implementation of evidence-based interventions. The purpose of this study was to explore the views of academic leaders as to why doctoral research is not adequately used in policymaking.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were held with purposively selected key informants from the College of Health Sciences. An open-ended interview guide aimed at exploring college leadership views on factors influencing utilization of PhD generated knowledge into policy was used. Data was analysed thematically using NVivo 12 software. Thematic analysis was used to generate themes around the factors influencing utilization of doctoral research into policy.

RESULTS

Factors such as inaccessibility of research results, lack of funding, poor quality of research, lack of continuity in translating research into policy, lack of timeliness of research results and lack of collaboration between researchers and policymakers hindered the utilization of PhD generated knowledge. Participants recommended engagement with the Department of Health/policymakers, collaboration with Department of Health/policymakers, increasing enrolment of South African citizens into PhD program, making final research products available to Department of Health/policymakers, and provision of funding for dissemination of research results.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated that final doctoral research results are mainly disseminated through journal articles and theses. Participants cited inaccessibility of research findings, lack of funding and poor-quality research as the most common factors hindering utilization of doctoral research findings. The study also recommended availing adequate funding for dissemination of research results, collaboration between researchers and policymakers, facilitation of policymaker-researcher engagement to find best ways of using research findings to influence policy and making final research products accessible to policymakers. Further research to gain the perspective of policymakers as to why doctoral research is not adequately used in policy formulation is recommended.

Nurses' perceptions of factors influencing treatment engagement among patients with cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review

Background

Nurses are key to the success of patient engagement, yet we know little about nurses’ perceptions on treatment engagement and how they can contribute to treatment engagement. Qualitative evidence to identify factors that influence treatment engagement among patients with CVD from nurse’s perspective is limited.

Methods

This systematic review of qualitative research was based on the PRISMA reporting guidelines. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist was used to assess quality by two reviewers independently. Data were collected from Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Embase- Non-Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library, were systematically searched from 2001 to 2020. The search strategy included keywords and MeSH terms to identify relevant studies written in English.

Results

Eight articles were included in the review. Four key themes were synthesised from the findings: nurses need training and up to date information, providing support for patients, patient motivation to engage with treatment plans and perceived lack of time.

Conclusion

Nurses described the importance of training to help them support patients to engage as effectively as possible and their role in providing social and psychological support. They also described the importance of patient motivation to engage in a treatment and plan and sustain engagement and time.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12912-021-00765-2.

Grounded theory: what makes a grounded theory study?

Grounded theory (GT) is both a research method and a research methodology. There are several different ways of doing GT which reflect the different viewpoints of the originators. For those who are new to this approach to conducting qualitative research, this can be confusing. In this article, we outline the key characteristics of GT and describe the role of the literature review in three common GT approaches, illustrated using exemplar studies.

Integrated cardiovascular risk management programme versus usual care in patients at high cardiovascular risk: an observational study in general practice

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the leading cause of death worldwide. Despite the impact of CVDs, risk factors are often insufficiently controlled in patients at high risk. Recently, integrated multidisciplinary cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) programmes have been introduced in primary care.

AIM

To investigate the effects of a CVRM programme on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol.

DESIGN & SETTING

A prospective observational study was undertaken in patients at high cardiovascular (CV) risk who were aged 40-80 years. Integrated CVRM care was compared with usual care in general practice in the Netherlands.

METHOD

Intervention and usual care patients were matched at baseline on age, sex, and presence of CVD. During 1 year of follow-up, patients received integrated or usual CVRM care in general practice. Primary outcomes were SBP and LDL-cholesterol. Secondary outcomes included calculated 10-year CV risk, body mass index (BMI), lifestyle (smoking, physical activity, and dietary habits), medication use, patient satisfaction, healthcare consumption, morbidity, comorbidity, and mortality. Mixed-model analyses were used to assess the outcomes.

RESULTS

Totals of 372 and 317 patients were included in the intervention and usual care group, respectively. Mean age at baseline was 65.1 years and 66.2 years, respectively, and 42% were female in both groups. After 1 year, no differences were observed in: SBP (137.2 mmHg versus 139.0 mmHg in the intervention and usual care group, respectively); LDL-cholesterol (2.6 mmol/l in both groups); or in any of the secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Integrated CVRM care in general practice did not lead to a lower SBP or LDL-cholesterol in patients at high CV risk. Further research is needed to improve CVRM.