A cross-sectional study of United States Academic-clinical research collaborations: Characteristics, resources, benefits and outcomes.

AIMS: The aims of the study were to compare characteristics, resources, benefits and outcomes of academic-clinical collaborations of nursing researcher leaders from academic, clinical and joint-employer sites. BACKGROUND: Few research-based publications addressed academic-clinical research collaborations. New knowledge could increase nursing and multidisciplinary research productivity, including implementation science. DESIGN: An anonymous survey using a 40-item questionnaire. METHODS: Information letters with a link to the questionnaire were emailed to United States nursing research leaders. Data were grouped by institution type: academic, clinical or joint-employer. Analyses included Kruskal-Wallis tests for ordered responses, Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical responses and Cohen's Kappa agreement statistic for expected and actual time devoted to research. STROBE guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Of 120 respondents from academic (n = 60; 50.0%), clinical (n = 53; 41.2%) and joint-employer (n = 7; 5.8%) sites, 78.3%, 92.3% and 100%, respectively, were from metropolitan areas. Mean (SD) priority for active collaborations was higher at joint-employer sites; p = .002. Clinical sites were more likely to have directors of evidence-based practice (p = .031) and informatics (p = .008) and librarians (p = .029). Sites with collaborations were more likely to have access to research subjects (p = .008) and post-award research account management (p = .045). By collaboration status, there were no differences in the number of ethics board-approved studies. Collaborating site benefits were perceived to be executive leadership support (p = .003), greater research engagement by clinical nurses (p = .048), more co-authored publications (p = .048) and more abstracts accepted at national meetings (p = .044). Despite more resources and perceived benefits, outcomes did not differ by collaboration status. CONCLUSIONS: Sites with and without academic-clinical research collaborations differed; however, outcomes were similar. Future efforts should focus on nurse scientist collaboration to address important clinical questions aimed at improving clinical outcomes. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Despite some successful outcomes, potential benefits of academic-clinical research collaborations have not been fully actualised.

Infant Vaccinations among Mothers with Substance-Use Disorders: A Comparative Study.

Introduction: Infants of mothers with substance use disorder (SUD) are exposed to complex social environments and increased childhood health risks that can lead to adverse consequences throughout the lifespan. GunderKids, a voluntary, specialized, comprehensive pediatric care management program, was developed to mitigate many of these adverse consequences. Our organization is evaluating several clinical outcomes related to health and development in children born to women with SUD. The current study addressed the timeliness of vaccination coverage among these infants.Methods: This descriptive comparative preliminary study evaluated data of infants and their mothers with SUD who were previously identified during prenatal care visits either by self-report or by positive urine screens. Sociodemographic and vaccination data were extracted from a longitudinal master dataset of variables developed and maintained through retrospective review of electronic health records (EHRs) of these mothers and their infants. Timeliness of vaccination coverage of SUD-exposed infants participating in GunderKids was compared with that of SUD-exposed infants receiving standard pediatric care and was determined using a cumulative vaccinations method.Results: Overall, infants in the GunderKids group (n=50) had more timely vaccination coverage than those receiving standard pediatric care (n=20). Examples of timelier coverage included Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) at 4 months (P = .01; OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.4-13.4), for pneumococcal (P = .004; OR 6.6, 95% CI 1.8-23.8) and Hib (P = .004; OR 5.8, 95% CI 1.6-21.9) vaccinations at 15 months. More than 77% of GunderKids received all 6-month vaccinations in a timely manner compared with less than 45% of the standard care group; odds ratios suggest that GunderKids had 4.0-5.6 higher odds of receiving 6-month vaccinations.Conclusion: Vaccination coverage of infants participating in GunderKids was timelier than that of infants receiving standard pediatric care. Results suggest that specialized programs like GunderKids may assist in mitigating adverse health consequences and timeliness of vaccination coverage might be used as a proxy for measuring program effectiveness. Further investigation is recommended to determine clinical, individual, and organizational factors that influence parental behaviors and pediatric outcomes within SUD-exposed families.

Fostering Academic-Clinical Research Partnerships.

Academic-clinical research partnerships can benefit academic and clinical partners when goals are clearly articulated and mutually determined and include increased research dissemination and lower research costs. This article explores the history of academic-clinical research partnerships and discusses the drivers of collaborative academic-clinical research relationships, resources from academia and clinical sites, and sustainability of collaborative partnerships. Through collaboration, academic-clinical partners can improve clinical outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.

Research translation and the evolving PhD and DNP practice roles: A collaborative call for nurse practitioners.

Doctoral prepared nurse practitioners (NPs) are uniquely positioned for responsible leadership as essential members of the health care system and have a professional responsibility to contribute to research and clinical inquiry initiatives that advance health care delivery and improve outcomes. Academic preparation of the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP), although different in focus, offers opportunities for effective collaborations that transcend and integrate the scientific and practice roles of generating data and translating evidence. As health care organizations evolve in managing complexities of providing high-quality care, roles for the PhD as research scientist and DNP as research translation specialist will also evolve to keep pace. Despite this professional calling and global opportunity for research and evidence-based practice (EBP), future NPs and nurses will be challenged with an imminent lack of experts who have the skills needed for data and research generation and evidence translation. This commentary introduces and discusses emerging roles and organizational models for doctoral prepared NPs in research, EBP, quality assurance, and quality improvement projects, offers suggestions for NPs interested in research and clinical inquiry, and seeks to ignite excitement for scientific discovery in NP-driven initiatives. Nurse practitioners are encouraged to take advantage of the many opportunities to shape and expand their careers by engaging in knowledge generation for improving health care outcomes.