Dissemination of PhD Dissertation Research by Dissertation Format: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The study purpose was to compare dissemination of PhD dissertation research by dissertation format traditional (five-chapter document providing a complete and systematic account of the PhD research) versus an alternate (substudy [document containing three smaller studies but not written as stand-alone manuscripts] or publication [document containing three or more related manuscripts intended for submission or published in a peer-reviewed journal]) format. DESIGN: A retrospective study of all PhD dissertations (1999-2019) from one research intensive school of nursing. METHODS: Following identification of graduates via the school's PhD database, we searched ProQuest and PubMed databases for the dissertation and first authored peer-reviewed publications of each graduate to determine dissertation format, study design, timing and number of dissertation research publications, and inclusion of dissertation sponsor in authorship. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. FINDINGS: Of 113 graduates, 80 (70.8%) employed a traditional format, with the remaining graduates structuring dissertations using an alternate (substudy [n = 12], publication [n = 21]) format. Of those using the traditional format, 33 graduates (41.3%) never published dissertation research findings in a peer-reviewed journal. For those who published their dissertation research in a peer-reviewed journal, time to first publication was 1.4 ± 2.1 years (median 1.6 years) following degree conferral. In contrast, all graduates who utilized alternate formats published one or more components of their dissertation research with shorter time to first published manuscript (-0.6 ± 1.1 years; median -0.5 years; p < .001). Number of peer-reviewed publications was higher for those who utilized an alternate format compared to the traditional format (2.9 ± 1.5 [median 3.0] vs. 1.8 ± 1.1 [median 1.0], p = .001). Acknowledgment of the sponsor's contribution via publication authorship was higher for those using an alternate format compared to the traditional format (100% vs. 70.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Number and timeliness of peer-reviewed publications stemming from dissertation research was higher for PhD graduates who utilized an alternate dissertation format. Alternate dissertation formats should be encouraged by PhD programs as one means to improve dissemination of PhD nursing research. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Dissemination of PhD research through peer-reviewed publications promotes the continued development of nursing science to inform nursing practice and advances the career trajectory of PhD graduates.