Motivators and Stressors for Canadian Research Coordinators in Critical Care: The MOTIVATE Survey

Job description and perception of clinical research personnel working in a network of French intensive care units

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of information about the organisation and management of clinical research personnel in Europe and of their professional activity in intensive care. We therefore conducted a cross-sectional survey among personnel currently working in a French intensive care research network that involves 41 centres nationwide. The aim of the survey was to describe the personnel's personal and institutional organisation and management, their job perception in terms of satisfaction and stress, and suggestions for improvement.

METHODS

Over 3 months in 2023, the research personnel received an electronic questionnaire on their personal and professional profile, past and present training, workplace and functions currently performed, personal knowledge about job skills required, job satisfaction and stress by as measured on a rating scale, and suggested ways of improvement.

RESULTS

Ninety seven people replied to the questionnaire (a response rate of 71.3%), of whom 78 (57.3%) were sufficiently involved in intensive care to provide complete answers. This core sample had profiles in line with French recruitment policies and comprised mainly Bachelor/Master graduates, with nurses accounting for only 21.8%. The female to male ratio was 77:23%. Many responders declared to have a shared activity of technician (for investigation) and assistant (for quality control). More than 70% of the responders considered that most of the tasks required of each worker were major. Figures were much lower for project managers, who were few to take part in the survey. On a scale of 10, the median of job satisfaction was 7 for personal work organisation, 6 for training and for institutional organisation, and only 5 for personal career management. The median of job stress was 5 and was inversely correlated with satisfaction with career management. Respect of autonomy, work-sharing activity between investigation and quality control, a better career progression, financial reward for demanding tasks, and participation in unit staff meetings were the main suggestions to improve employee satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

This nationwide survey provides a new insight into the activity of French clinical research personnel and points to ways to improve the quality and efficiency of this workforce.

Rethinking Health Professionals’ Motivation to Do Research: A Systematic Review

Background

Health professionals’ engagement in translational health and medical research (HMR) is fundamental to evidence-based practice leading to better patient health outcomes. However, there is a decline in the number of health professionals undertaking research which has implications for patient health and the economy. Informed by the motivation-based expectancy-value-cost (EVC) and self determination theories (SDT), this systematic literature review examined the barriers and facilitators of health professionals’ (HPs) motivation to undertake research.

Methods

The literature was searched between 2011 and 2021 for relevant peer-reviewed articles written in English, using CINAHL Complete, Informit, Medline Ovid, Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases. This systematic review was performed and reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.

Results

Identified barriers to HPs’ engagement with research included the lack of knowledge, skills, and competence to conduct research, lack of protected research time, lack of funding and lack of organisational support. Integration of the findings of this review based on the EVC and SDT theories indicate that research capacity, ie, expectancy and competence is highly influenced by attitude, ie, the type of value (attainment, intrinsic or utility) and connection attributed to research. HPs who had very positive attitude towards research demonstrated all three values and were keen to take up research despite the barriers. Those who had a positive attitude were only motivated to do research because of its utility value and did not necessarily see it as having personal relevance for themselves. HPs who were unmotivated did not see any personal connection or relatedness to the research experience and saw no value in research.

Conclusion

The attitude HPs hold in their value of research is a catalyst for motivation or amotivation to engage in research as it directly influences the relevance of barriers. Facilitators that expedite the research journey have been attributed to research training, mentorship programs and supportive organisational research culture. Motivation of HPs explored through EVC and SDT is critical to the maintenance of a research culture and the clinician-researcher development pipeline.