Search

Objectives Healthcare research performance is increasingly assessed through research indicators. We performed a systematic review to identify the indicators that have been used to measure healthcare research performance. We evaluated their feasibility, validity, reliability and acceptability; and finally assessed the utility of these indicators in terms of measuring performance in individuals, specialties, institutions and countries. Design A systematic review was performed by searching EMBASE, PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases between 1950 and September 2010. Setting Studies of healthcare research were appraised. Healthcare was defined as the prevention, treatment and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical wellbeing through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions. Participants All original studies that evaluated research performance indicators in healthcare were included. Main outcome measures Healthcare research indicators, data sources, study characteristics, results and limitations for each study were studied. Results The most common research performance indicators identified in 50 studies were: number of publications (n = 38), number of citations (n = 27), Impact Factor (n = 15), research funding (n = 10), degree of co-authorship (n = 9), and h index (n = 5). There was limited investigation of feasibility, validity, reliability and acceptability, although the utility of these indicators was adequately described. Conclusion Currently, there is only limited evidence to assess the value of healthcare research performance indicators. Further studies are required to define the application of these indicators through a balanced approach for quality and innovation. The ultimate aim of utilizing healthcare research indicators is to create a culture of measuring research performance to support the translation of research into greater societal and economic impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: A knowledge and understanding of specialist anatomy, which includes radiological, laparoscopic, endoscopic and endovascular anatomy is essential for interpretation of imaging and development of procedural skills. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Medical students, specialist trainees and specialists from the London (England, UK) area were surveyed to investigate individual experiences and recommendations for: (1) timing of the introduction of specialist anatomy teaching, and (2) pedagogical methods used. Opinions relating to radiological, laparoscopic, endoscopic and endovascular anatomy were collected. Non-parametric tests were used to investigate differences in recommendations between specialist trainees and specialists. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-eight (53%) individuals responded to the survey. Imaging was most commonly used to learn radiological anatomy (94.5%). Procedural observation was most commonly used to learn laparoscopic (89.0%), endoscopic (87.3%) and endovascular anatomy (66.2%). Imaging was the most recommended method to learn radiological anatomy (92.1%). Procedural observation was the most recommended method for learning laparoscopic (80.0%), endoscopic (81.2%) and endovascular anatomy (42.5%). Specialist trainees and specialists recommended introduction of specialist anatomy during undergraduate training. CONCLUSION: Although the methods for specialist anatomy learning are in practice, there is no consensus on timing and structure within the anatomy curriculum. Recommendations from trainees and specialists should be considered so that the existing curriculum can be refined to maximise learning outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]