A registered report survey of open research practices in psychology departments in the UK and Ireland.

Open research practices seek to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research. While there is evidence of increased uptake in these practices, such as study preregistration and open data, facilitated by new infrastructure and policies, little research has assessed general uptake of such practices across psychology university researchers. The current study estimates psychologists' level of engagement in open research practices across universities in the United Kingdom and Ireland, while also assessing possible explanatory factors that may impact their engagement. Data were collected from 602 psychology researchers in the United Kingdom and Ireland on the extent to which they have implemented various practices (e.g., use of preprints, preregistration, open data, open materials). Here we present the summarized descriptive results, as well as considering differences between various categories of researcher (e.g., career stage, subdiscipline, methodology), and examining the relationship between researcher's practices and their self-reported capability, opportunity, and motivation (COM-B) to engage in open research practices. Results show that while there is considerable variability in engagement of open research practices, differences across career stage and subdiscipline of psychology are small by comparison. We observed consistent differences according to respondent's research methodology and based on the presence of institutional support for open research. COM-B dimensions were collectively significant predictors of engagement in open research, with automatic motivation emerging as a consistently strong predictor. We discuss these findings, outline some of the challenges experienced in this study, and offer suggestions and recommendations for future research. Estimating the prevalence of responsible research practices is important to assess sustained behaviour change in research reform, tailor educational training initiatives, and to understand potential factors that might impact engagement.

GP preferences for, access to, and use of evidence in clinical practice: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: GPs aim to provide patient-centred care combining clinical evidence, clinical judgement, and patient priorities. Despite a recognition of the need to translate evidence to support patient care, barriers exist to the use of evidence in practice. AIM: To ascertain the needs and preferences of GPs regarding evidence-based guidance to support patient care. The study also aimed to prioritise content and optimise structure and dissemination of future evidence-based guidance. DESIGN & SETTING: This was a convergent parallel mixed-methods study in collaboration with the national GP professional body in the Republic of Ireland (Irish College of General Practitioners [ICGP]). Quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated at the interpretive level. METHOD: A national GP survey was administered via the ICGP (December 2020) and seven GP focus groups were undertaken (April-May 2021). RESULTS: Of 3496 GPs, a total of 509 responders (14.6%) completed the survey and 40 GP participants took part in focus groups. Prescribing updates, interpretation of test results, chronic disease management, and older person care were the preferred topics for future evidence-based guidance. GPs reported that they required rapid access to up-to-date and relevant evidence summaries online for use in clinical practice. Access to more comprehensive reviews for the purposes of continuing education and teaching was also a priority. Multimodal forms of dissemination were preferred to increase uptake of evidence in practice. CONCLUSION: GPs indicated that rapid access to up-to-date, summarised evidence-based resources, available from their professional organisation, is preferred. Evidence should reflect the disease burden of the population and involve multifaceted dissemination approaches.

A scoping review of evidence-based guidance and guidelines published by general practice professional organizations.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) need robust, up-to-date evidence to deliver high-quality patient care. There is limited literature regarding the role of international GP professional organizations in developing and publishing clinical guidelines to support GPs clinical decision making. OBJECTIVE: To identify evidence-based guidance and clinical guidelines produced by GP professional organizations and summarize their content, structure, and methods of development and dissemination. METHODS: Scoping review of GP professional organizations following Joanna Briggs Institute guidance. Four databases were searched and a grey literature search was conducted. Studies were included if they were: (i) evidence-based guidance documents or clinical guidelines produced de novo by a national GP professional organization, (ii) developed to support GPs clinical care, and (iii) published in the last 10 years. GP professional organizations were contacted to provide supplementary information. A narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Six GP professional organizations and 60 guidelines were included. The most common de novo guideline topics were mental health, cardiovascular disease, neurology, pregnancy and women's health and preventive care. All guidelines were developed using a standard evidence-synthesis method. All included documents were disseminated through downloadable pdfs and peer review publications. GP professional organizations indicated that they generally collaborate with or endorse guidelines developed by national or international guideline producing bodies. CONCLUSION: The findings of this scoping review provide an overview of de novo guideline development by GP professional organizations and can support collaboration between GP organizations worldwide thus reducing duplication of effort, facilitating reproducibility, and identifying areas of standardization. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JXQ26.

A scoping review protocol of evidence-based guidance and guidelines published by general practitioner professional organisations.

Introduction: General practitioners (GPs) strive to use a patient centred approach to achieve shared decision making by integrating clinical evidence, clinical judgement, and patient priorities. This protocol outlines a scoping review to identify what evidence-based guidance is produced by general practitioner professional organisations internationally to support general practice clinical decision making. Methods: This scoping review will be conducted using the framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), will be used to guide the reporting. Two researchers will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus), grey literature sources and contact international GP professional organisations directly to identify appropriate studies for inclusion. Key information will be categorised and classified to generate a summary of the methods used internationally to develop and implement evidence-based guides for general practitioners and a narrative synthesis will be conducted. Conclusions: This scoping review will identify the role of GP professional organisations in generating, endorsing and/or disseminating evidence-based guidance for supporting general practitioner's clinical decision making to benefit patient care.

'Challenges in experiential learning during transition to clinical practice: A comparative analysis of reflective writing assignments during general practice, paediatrics and psychiatry clerkships'.

INTRODUCTION: This study explored the reflective writing (RW) of senior medical students across a co-ordinated reflection education programme in General Practice, Paediatrics and Psychiatry clerkships during their transition to clinical clerkships. The study compared RW themes from within and across three clerkships in order to understand the influence clerkships had on experiential learning and developing professional identity. METHODS: All medical students in their penultimate year were invited to participate in the study. 135 reflection assignments were analysed. A qualitative thematic analysis of students' RW was performed. An inductive approach was used and data saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Clerkship specific themes were the intimacy of the experience in General Practice, the powerlessness students felt and the challenge of delivering family centred care in Paediatrics and the sense of perceived risk in Psychiatry. Common themes across the three clerkships were of emotional struggles in developing a professional identity. CONCLUSION: There is an educational need for developmental space for students during General Practice, greater focus on preparing students for relationship building during Paediatrics and addressing stigma and personal safety issues in students during the Psychiatry clerkships. Across clerkships there is a need for better use of evidence based pedagogies to support emotional development.