GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Marshfield Clinic Research Institute ; 2021
    In:  Clinical Medicine & Research Vol. 19, No. 1 ( 2021-03), p. 3-9
    In: Clinical Medicine & Research, Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, Vol. 19, No. 1 ( 2021-03), p. 3-9
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1539-4182 , 1554-6179
    Language: English
    Publisher: Marshfield Clinic Research Institute
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2155929-6
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) ; 2019
    In:  JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration Vol. 49, No. 5 ( 2019-5), p. 234-241
    In: JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), Vol. 49, No. 5 ( 2019-5), p. 234-241
    Abstract: Academic-clinical research partnerships can benefit academic and clinical partners when goals are clearly articulated and mutually determined and include increased research dissemination and lower research costs. This article explores the history of academic-clinical research partnerships and discusses the drivers of collaborative academic-clinical research relationships, resources from academia and clinical sites, and sustainability of collaborative partnerships. Through collaboration, academic-clinical partners can improve clinical outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1539-0721 , 0002-0443
    Language: English
    Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
    Publication Date: 2019
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2007563-7
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) ; 2019
    In:  Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners Vol. 31, No. 8 ( 2019-08), p. 447-453
    In: Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), Vol. 31, No. 8 ( 2019-08), p. 447-453
    Abstract: Doctoral prepared nurse practitioners (NPs) are uniquely positioned for responsible leadership as essential members of the health care system and have a professional responsibility to contribute to research and clinical inquiry initiatives that advance health care delivery and improve outcomes. Academic preparation of the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP), although different in focus, offers opportunities for effective collaborations that transcend and integrate the scientific and practice roles of generating data and translating evidence. As health care organizations evolve in managing complexities of providing high-quality care, roles for the PhD as research scientist and DNP as research translation specialist will also evolve to keep pace. Despite this professional calling and global opportunity for research and evidence-based practice (EBP), future NPs and nurses will be challenged with an imminent lack of experts who have the skills needed for data and research generation and evidence translation. This commentary introduces and discusses emerging roles and organizational models for doctoral prepared NPs in research, EBP, quality assurance, and quality improvement projects, offers suggestions for NPs interested in research and clinical inquiry, and seeks to ignite excitement for scientific discovery in NP-driven initiatives. Nurse practitioners are encouraged to take advantage of the many opportunities to shape and expand their careers by engaging in knowledge generation for improving health care outcomes.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2327-6924
    Language: English
    Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
    Publication Date: 2019
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2716325-8
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: Journal of Clinical Nursing, Wiley, Vol. 31, No. 3-4 ( 2022-02), p. 435-444
    Abstract: 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.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0962-1067 , 1365-2702
    URL: Issue
    Language: English
    Publisher: Wiley
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2006661-2
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...