Scholarlink

Background <p>Research engagement is essential for advancing clinical care and strengthening academic capacity. However, sustained participation is often limited by institutional and workflow constraints. This study assessed perceived research barriers and related factors at Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) and developed and preliminarily evaluated a context-specific instrument.</p> Methods <p>A sequential, exploratory, mixed-methods, single-centre study was conducted. Qualitative interviews and focus groups informed the development of a 45-item questionnaire covering 10 domains of research barriers and motives. The final instrument was administered via an online survey, with quota-based stratified sampling across academic roles. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha.</p> Results <p>The scale showed acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.85), but domain-level reliability was mostly modest (α range: 0.36–0.76), and the a priori 10-domain structure was not confirmed (CFI = 0.69, TLI = 0.66, RMSEA = 0.062, SRMR = 0.17); exploratory analysis supported five to six broader dimensions. A total of 358 participants completed the survey (mean age 28.66 ± 7.38; 62.6% male). The total questionnaire score ranged from 113 to 198, with a mean of 153.66 ± 16.24, indicating moderate-to-strong endorsement of perceived research challenges. The highest domain means were observed for data access and quality (27.01 ± 4.05), financial resources and infrastructure (23.01 ± 4.10), and authorship, ethics, and research performance (17.80 ± 2.95). Total scores did not differ by academic position (<i>P</i> = 0.27), but significant differences were observed in time, workload, and organizational support, as well as in skills, training, and methodological consultation (both <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). Total scores had a weak but significant correlation with years of research experience (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001) and H-index (<i>P</i> = 0.01).</p> Conclusion <p>Perceived research barriers at TUMS are broadly endorsed and appear concentrated in modifiable institutional domains, particularly data access and quality, resource constraints, and governance-related factors. Institutional strategies that strengthen data systems, improve access to evidence, and enhance organizational support may improve the feasibility and sustainability of research engagement in similar academic medical settings.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Medical research barriers, facilitators, and motives in a developing country: a mixed-methods single-centre study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月22日

查看全文
  • Mohammad Abed,
  • Farhang Rashidi,
  • Mohammad Hassan Bagheri,
  • Alipahsa Meysamie,
  • Milad Shafizadeh

摘要

Background

Research engagement is essential for advancing clinical care and strengthening academic capacity. However, sustained participation is often limited by institutional and workflow constraints. This study assessed perceived research barriers and related factors at Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) and developed and preliminarily evaluated a context-specific instrument.

Methods

A sequential, exploratory, mixed-methods, single-centre study was conducted. Qualitative interviews and focus groups informed the development of a 45-item questionnaire covering 10 domains of research barriers and motives. The final instrument was administered via an online survey, with quota-based stratified sampling across academic roles. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha.

Results

The scale showed acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.85), but domain-level reliability was mostly modest (α range: 0.36–0.76), and the a priori 10-domain structure was not confirmed (CFI = 0.69, TLI = 0.66, RMSEA = 0.062, SRMR = 0.17); exploratory analysis supported five to six broader dimensions. A total of 358 participants completed the survey (mean age 28.66 ± 7.38; 62.6% male). The total questionnaire score ranged from 113 to 198, with a mean of 153.66 ± 16.24, indicating moderate-to-strong endorsement of perceived research challenges. The highest domain means were observed for data access and quality (27.01 ± 4.05), financial resources and infrastructure (23.01 ± 4.10), and authorship, ethics, and research performance (17.80 ± 2.95). Total scores did not differ by academic position (P = 0.27), but significant differences were observed in time, workload, and organizational support, as well as in skills, training, and methodological consultation (both P < 0.001). Total scores had a weak but significant correlation with years of research experience (P < 0.001) and H-index (P = 0.01).

Conclusion

Perceived research barriers at TUMS are broadly endorsed and appear concentrated in modifiable institutional domains, particularly data access and quality, resource constraints, and governance-related factors. Institutional strategies that strengthen data systems, improve access to evidence, and enhance organizational support may improve the feasibility and sustainability of research engagement in similar academic medical settings.