Developing the multi-professional clinical academic workforce in Australia and New Zealand: a scoping review
Journal Publication ResearchOnline@JCUAbstract
In Australia and New Zealand (ANZ), clinical academics are an important part of the workforce needed to deliver social and economic returns from health and medical research investment. This review aims to examine the extent and nature of the empirical evidence base addressing the development of the multi-professional clinical academic workforce in ANZ and to synthesise policy-relevant findings. The review adopts a scoping review design. Literature searches were undertaken in February 2019 in Medline (Ovid), Scopus, and CINAHL, with reference lists and websites also searched for additional literature. Papers eligible for inclusion were those published in English in 2000–2018 that reported results of empirical studies that addressed factors relating to developing the ANZ clinical academic workforce size, composition or role through building, enabling or sustaining its research functions. Results were reported narratively using a labour market policy framework. A total of 43 studies representing a diverse range of health professions and study designs were included in the review, only two of which reported on the New Zealand context. The majority were focused on building, supporting and sustaining research capacity and engagement among groups of clinicians within clinical settings. Use of three labour market policy levers to frame analysis enabled identification of issues relating to rural/urban workforce maldistribution, in addition to more widely reported clinical academic workforce production and retention issues. The literature addressing the development of the clinical academic health workforce in ANZ frames this workforce either as clinicians who routinely engage in research activity, or as a workforce cadre comprised of distinct, formalised research-related clinical roles. As such, developing the clinical academic workforce requires both: i) policy attention to the availability of research training opportunities for health professional students and graduates and of dedicated research-related career pathways; and ii) structures and processes that enable or inhibit research engagement among clinicians at a mid-career level.
Journal
Evidence Base: A journal of evidence reviews in key policy areas
Publication Name
N/A
Volume
2021
ISBN/ISSN
1838-9422
Edition
N/A
Issue
1
Pages Count
27
Location
N/A
Publisher
Exeley
Publisher Url
N/A
Publisher Location
N/A
Publish Date
N/A
Url
N/A
Date
N/A
EISSN
N/A
DOI
10.21307/eb-2021-001