Interventions to enhance the research productivity of academic staff in higher education schools of nursing: A systematic review

Abstract

AimSynthesize and present peer-reviewed evidence of interventions that enhance the research productivity of academics in Schools of Nursing in Higher Education Institutions. BackgroundPressures on academics in Schools of Nursing worldwide to increase or maintain high research productivity persist and numerous Higher Education Institutions across the world have developed interventions to increase productivity. Given evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a withdrawal from research, understanding which interventions best support and improve research productivity is urgent. Increasing research capacity is crucial but only one element in increasing productivity. No recent attempt has been made to synthesise the knowledge gained from these more wide-ranging initiatives. DesignA mixed-methods systematic review, registered in PROSPERO, searching four academic databases (CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO) from 1/01/2010–20/04/2022. All primary research studies of relevant interventions were included if they described the intervention, reported its outcomes and were published in the English language in peer-reviewed journals. Results1637 studies were assessed against eligibility criteria, resulting in 20 included studies. No studies were excluded based on quality. Data pertaining to understandings of ‘research productivity’, barriers to research productivity, interventions and outcomes of interventions were extracted. The most often used measures were the frequency or staff-output ratio of funding, publications and presentations, while the less commonly used were the number of conference abstracts submitted/accepted and awards. Subjective measures were less commonly used. Barriers to research productivity fell into three broad categories: resource constraints, lack of priority for research and barriers related to the attitudes, knowledge and skills of School of Nursing academics. Interventions covered nine broad areas. Half of the interventions were multi-stranded, including a wide range of components to increase research productivity while the other half comprised one component only, such as writing groups and mentoring. All interventions had a positive impact on research productivity, however, heterogeneity in the measurement of impact, the duration of interventions, sources of comparative data and research design made comparison of interventions challenging. ConclusionsThe review identified a need for future research to explore the barriers among under-represented groups of academics in Schools of Nursing across a broader geographical area; and what works for various sub-groups of academics. It also identified a need for a valid, standardised tool to assess the effectiveness of interventions to increase research productivity of academics in Schools of Nursing.