Trusson Diane, Rowley Emma, Barratt Jonathan
School of Medicine, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands (ARC EM), University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
School of Medicine, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands (ARC EM), University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
BMJ Open. 2021 Apr 1;11(4):e043270. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043270.
This study aimed to compare experiences of medical clinical academics (MCAs) with those of nurses, midwives and allied health professionals (NMAHPs) pursuing a clinical academic career.
A multimethods approach was used to elicit qualitative data. Both sets of participants completed similar online surveys followed by in-depth interviews to explore emerging themes.
The research was conducted in the East Midlands of England, encompassing two Higher Education Institutions and four National Health Service Trusts.
Surveys were completed by 67 NMAHPs and 73 MCA trainees. Sixteen participants from each group were interviewed following a similar interview schedule.
The survey data revealed notable differences in demographics of the two study populations, reflecting their different career structures. MCAs were younger and they all combined clinical and academic training, lengthening the time before qualification. In contrast, most NMAHPs had been in their clinical post for some years before embarking on a clinical academic pathway. Both routes had financial and personal repercussions and participants faced similar obstacles. However, there was also evidence of wide-ranging benefits from combining clinical and academic roles.
Variations in experiences between the two study populations highlight a need for a clear academic pathway for all health professionals, as well as sufficient opportunities post-PhD to enable clinical academics to fully use their dual skills.
本研究旨在比较医学临床学者（MCAs）与从事临床学术职业的护士、助产士和专职医疗人员（NMAHPs）的经历。
采用多方法途径获取定性数据。两组参与者都完成了类似的在线调查，随后进行深入访谈以探索新出现的主题。
研究在英格兰东米德兰兹地区进行，涵盖两所高等教育机构和四个国民保健服务信托基金。
67名NMAHPs和73名MCA学员完成了调查。每组有16名参与者按照类似的访谈提纲接受了访谈。
调查数据显示，两个研究群体在人口统计学方面存在显著差异，反映了他们不同的职业结构。MCAs更年轻，他们都将临床培训和学术培训结合在一起，这延长了获得资格前的时间。相比之下，大多数NMAHPs在开始临床学术道路之前已经在临床岗位工作了几年。两条途径都有经济和个人方面的影响，参与者面临类似的障碍。然而，也有证据表明，结合临床和学术角色有广泛的益处。
两个研究群体经历的差异凸显了为所有卫生专业人员建立明确学术途径的必要性，以及在博士毕业后提供足够机会，使临床学者能够充分利用其双重技能。
