Assessing research self-efficacy among primary health care physicians: a snapshot from Qatar

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 23 - Trang 1-7 - 2022
Iheb Bougmiza1, Sarah Naja2, Mohamad Alchawa2, Muna Abed Alah2, Noora Al Kaabi2, Noora Al Kubaisi3, Nagah Selim1
1Primary Health Care Corporation, Doha, Qatar
2Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
3Primary Health Care Corporation, Doha-Qatar

Tóm tắt

Research self-efficacy is one of the crucial predictors of productively engaging in research activities emphasized by the Qatar National Vision 2030. Nevertheless, studies typically focus on research self-efficacy among students, neglecting physicians, despite the importance of research as competency in continuous professional development. Therefore, the objective of our study is to understand the level of research self-efficacy among physicians and its determinants.  An analytical cross-sectional design was employed. We utilized an open survey through DACIMA Software that included questions related to Self-Efficacy in Research Measure (SERM) and possible determinants. One-hundred-twenty-two completed answers, and the response rate was 19.2%. Following descriptive analyses, a chi-square test was used to uncover the associations among variables, with significance set to p ≤ 0.05. Next, a logistic regression model was conducted to identify the predictors of a low research self-efficacy level. Finally, reliability and principal component analysis were applied on the SERM scale. Three-quarters of the sample reported insufficient research self-efficacy. The sociodemographic and professional factors did not significantly associate with insufficient research self-efficacy. However, participation in clinical guidelines proved to be a determinant of sufficient research self-efficacy. Physicians must be encouraged to participate in clinical guidelines to improve their research self-efficacy level.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall; 1986. van der Bijl JJ, Shortridge-Baggett LM. The theory and measurement of the self-efficacy construct. Sch Inq Nurs Pract. 2001;15(3):189–207 PMID: 11871579. Watson H, Burr S. Research skills in medical education. MedEdPublish J; 2018. https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2018.0000151.1 Phillips J, Russell R. Research self-efficacy, the research training environment, and research productivity among graduate students in counselling psychology. Couns Psychol.1994; 22(4): 628 641. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000094224008 Abrahamson k, Arling P, Gillette J. Does self-efficacy influence the application of evidence-based practice: A survey and structural equation model. J Nurses Prof Dev. 2013;3 (5) .https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v3n5p1 Mullikin E, Bakken L, Betz N. Assessing Research Self-Efficacy in Physician-Scientists: The Clinical Research APPraisal Inventory. J Career Assess. 2007;15(3):367–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072707301232. Cruz R, Rosario M, Escudero P, Damián M. Research self-efficacy sources and research motivation in a foreign language university faculty in Mexico: implications for educational policy. High Educ Res Dev. 2016;35(4):800–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1137884. Taheri B, Ashrafi-Rizi H, Najafi N, Kazempour Z. Research self-efficacy among students of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. J Educ Health Promot. 2015;27(4):26. https://doi.org/10.4103/2277-9531.154117. Unrau Y, Beck A. Increasing Research Self-Efficacy Among Students in Professional Academic Programs. Innov High Educ. 2004;28(3):187–204. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:IHIE.0000015107.51904.95. Kathleen A, Arling P, Gillette J. Does self-efficacy influence the application of evidence-based practice: A survey and structural equation model. J Nurs Educ Pract.2013; 3 (5). https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v3n5p1 Ministry of Development Planning and Statistics. Qatar National Development Strategy 2018–2022. Doha, Qatar. Available from: https://www.psa.gov.qa/en/knowledge/Documents/NDS2Final.pdf Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(3): e34. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34. National Library of Medicine. Dependent and Independent Variables. Available from: Dependent and Independent Variables (nih.gov) Forester M, Kahn J, Hesson-McInnis M. Factor Structures of Three Measures of Research Self-Efficacy. J Career Assess. 2004;12(1):3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072703257719. Singh R, Agarwal T, Al-Thani H, Al Maslamani Y, El-Menyar A. Validation of a Survey Questionnaire on Organ Donation: An Arabic World Scenario. J Transplant. 2018;2018:1–10. Scoring Instructions for the Expanded Prostate cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26) . Available from :https://medicine.umich.edu/sites/default/files/content/downloads/Scoring%20Instructions%20for%20the%20EPIC%2026.pdf Joshi A, Kale S, Chandel S, Pal D. Likert Scale: Explored and Explained. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2015;7(4):396–403.https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975 [13] Joshi A, Kale S, Chandel S, Pal D. Likert Scale: Explored and Explained. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2015;7(4):396–403. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975 Jager J, Putnick D, Bornstein M. More than just convenient: The scientific merits of homogeneous convenience samples. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 2017;82(2):13–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12296.