• Users Online: 243
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 178-184

Perceptions, Attitudes, and Barriers to scientific publications among medical college staff members – A cross-sectional study


1 Department of Physiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, KAHER University, Belagavi, Karnataka, India
2 Department of Microbiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, KAHER University, Belagavi, Karnataka, India
3 Department of Master of Public Health, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, KAHER University, Belagavi, Karnataka, India

Date of Submission28-Feb-2020
Date of Decision18-May-2020
Date of Acceptance09-Jun-2020
Date of Web Publication18-Dec-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Vijaya Shankargouda Dandannavar
Department of Physiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, KAHER University, Belagavi, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/bjhs.bjhs_14_20

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


BACKGROUND: In the medical profession to improve health care, there is a need to conduct valid and reliable research work and that doctors, nurses, and other care workers play an important role in health care. Attitude and perceptions have a significant impact on staff performance, which, in turn, decides the performance of the organization. There is a need for the provision of the requirements of researches, which would bolster their enthusiasm and improve the attitude and research productivity
AIM: The aim of this study is to find out the publishing practices, perceptions, attitudes, and barriers regarding scientific publications among pre and para clinical faculties.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional Ethical committee (IEC) was obtained, and a prevalidated structure questionnaire which had four sections pertaining to sociodemographic status, perception, attitudes, and barriers was used to collect the required data from 57 faculty members, willing to participate in the study, and the questionnaire was administered after taking voluntary informed consent from them
RESULTS: About 31.60% of participants manuscript were rejected, and among them, the reasons for rejections were no new knowledge, not of journal interest, similar studies were published earlier published, inappropriate title, study was simple and plain and such studies were not published, sample size inadequate, no correct reasons given by the reviewers, inappropriate methodology, not well scripted, not as per the scope of the journal, lots of pending articles, and inappropriate statistic's used. Fifty-six percent of the total faculty were primed about the Basics of the Research Methodology and that 53% of participant's felt that research Methodology and training for the research in the medical field will be useful and would improve the standard of research productivity. More than 50% of the study participants were of the opinion the Post graduates should learn more about and conduct research in a scientific way. Twenty-five percent of the study participants were of the opinion that getting involved in research will over burden them. Majority of the study participants felt that motivation to take up research by receiving timely incentives for publication's would persuade them to take up research. Thirty-six percent of the Participants felt that the reasons for the nonindulgence in research were personal and 21% were inclusive regarding the availability of resource's for conducting the research.
CONCLUSION: Major barrier to publications was financial aspects and the unavailable resources though it was considered important for the promotions and future prospects. Majority of the medical faculty were of the opinion that Research methodology and training in the medical field will improve the standard of teaching. In order to increase the no of the faculty publications the barriers both at the individual and institutional levels can be overcome by giving suitable incentives to the faculty members and encourage them to publish by providing all the resources needed and free excess to the information as well.

Keywords: Attitudes, medical faculty, perceived barriers, scientific research


How to cite this article:
Dandannavar VS, Nagamoti J, Narasannavar A, Anand N. Perceptions, Attitudes, and Barriers to scientific publications among medical college staff members – A cross-sectional study. BLDE Univ J Health Sci 2020;5:178-84

How to cite this URL:
Dandannavar VS, Nagamoti J, Narasannavar A, Anand N. Perceptions, Attitudes, and Barriers to scientific publications among medical college staff members – A cross-sectional study. BLDE Univ J Health Sci [serial online] 2020 [cited 2021 Apr 14];5:178-84. Available from: https://www.bldeujournalhs.in/text.asp?2020/5/2/178/303956



Health research training has been recognized as an important component of medical education as rapid expansion and progress in medical research is expected to transform the current medical care.[1] Research is an important academic activity, an original contribution to the existing stock of knowledge making for its advancement. In health sciences research is search for knowledge through objective and systematic method of finding solution to a problem. In the recent years there has been a tremendous increase in scientific research all over the world especially in health sciences.[2]

Every doctor should strive to contribute to this generation of evidence by conducting research with adequate knowledge, practical skills and development of the right attitude toward research[3] as research is a neglected but an extremely important component among health care providers especially doctors.[4] In medical profession to improve the health care, there is a need to conduct valid and reliable research work[5],[6] and that doctors, nurses and other care workers play an important role in health care[7],[8] the results of few studies that have been conducted show that there are many constraints for carrying out research in term of various attitudes and barriers.[9],[10],[11] Attitude and perceptions have significant impact on staff performance, which in turn decides the performance of the Organization. There is a need for the provision of the requirements of research, which would bolster their enthusiasm andimprove the attitude and research productivity.[12]

Need for the study

Currently MCI has made it mandatory for faculty for promotion to higher cadre to relook into their publications criteria laid down jointly by MCI and NMC bill. In a statement released by the Ministry of Human Resource development on January 6, 2018 regarding the National Institutional Ranking framework status, a compilation of all scores regarding the status quo of every Institution was published. The ranking compiles data of all Universities into five categories.

  1. Teaching learning and resources
  2. Research and professional practice (RPP)
  3. Graduation outcomes
  4. Outreach and inclusivity
  5. Perception.


Considering this Categorization our Institute has been ranked 25th. To address the lacunae and to improve the overall ranking this study has been undertaken since we need to readdress the issues of research and publications where our institute has got a cumulative score of 13.21/100 which is a way below the averages of other Institutes. There was a need to carry out a survey among the faculty members in order to understand their perceptions, attitudes and barriers towards conduct of the research as we anticipate that the research output may improve if these constraints are identified and remedial measures are undertaken to address the same.

Aim

This study aimed to find out the publishing practices, perceptions, attitudes and barriers regarding scientific publications among pre and para clinical faculty members.

Objectives

  1. To assess the perceptions and publishing practice among pre and para clinical faculty members
  2. To have a feed back on the attitudes and barriers associated with scientific publications.



  Materials and Methods Top


  • Study design: Survey among the faculty members (a cross sectional study)
  • Study period: April 2018 to September 2018
  • Place of conduct of the study: Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College Belagavi
  • Source of data: Faculty members of pre and para clinical Departments of J. N. Medical College willing to participate in the study were enrolled after taking informed consent from them.


Ethical clearance was obtained from Institutional Ethics Committee (Ref. MDC/DOME dated June 11, 2018).

Tool for data collection

The survey questions were be collected from previous studies and were modified to develop a complete version to fit our culture and to include all the aspects concerned to medical research.

A prevalidated structure questionnaire which had 4 sections pertaining to socio demographic status perception, attitudes and barriers was used to collect the required data. All faculty members willing to participate in the study were enrolled and questionnaire was administered after taking voluntary informed consent.

Considering the objectives the questions were framed accordingly and had 4 sections.

  1. Documentation of the socio demographic details of the participants
  2. Questions addressed to practice in research (3 questions with sub questions for question no 1)
  3. Questions addressing their Attitudes towards research (7 questions)
  4. Questions addressing to the barriers that prevent faculty to participate or conduct research. (8 questions).


Scoring was done on a Likert scale for each component of the questionaries'.

Evaluation

  1. Statistical analysis of the data collected was analyzed by? SPSS software (16 version, IBM manufactured)
  2. Analysis of the variables (male and female comparison) was done by using Unpaired t-test.



  Results Top


1. A total of 57 study participants, participated in the study of which (n = 33) were from the Preclinical departments and (n = 24) were from the Para clinical department's

2. Majority of the study participants (n = 24) were from the age group between 31 and 40 years, while (n = 16) were from 41 to 50 years, (n = 14) were between 20 and 30 years and (n = 3) from 51 to 60 years [Questionnaire 1].

It was observed from [Table 1] and [Graph 1] that among the study participants 71.9% of respondents were female and that 28.1% were male.
Table 1: Gender wise frequency distribution of study participants

Click here to view



Teaching experience of the participants ranged between 1 and 30 years [Table 2].
Table 2: Teaching experiences of the study participants ranged from 1 to 40 years

Click here to view


Participants for teaching experience of 1–10 years = 33 in no, 11–20 years = 18 in no, and for 21–30 years were 6 in no [Graph 2].



  • 31.60% of participants manuscripts were rejected, and among them, the reasons for rejection were [Graph 3]:



(1) No new knowledge, (2) Not of journal interest, (3) Similar studies were published earlier published, (4) Inappropriate title, (5) Study was simple and plain and such studies were not published, (6) Sample size inadequate, (7) No Correct reasons given by the reviewers, (8) Inappropriate methodology, (9) Not well scripted, (9) not as per the scope of the journal, (10) Lots of pending articles and (11). Inappropriate statistic's used to analyze the data [Table 3].
Table 3: Participant's manuscript rejected

Click here to view


  1. 59.6% of participant's manuscripts were accepted for the publications after minor changes. Fifty-six percent of the Total faculty were primed about the basics of the research methodology and that 53% participant's felt that research methodology and training for the research in the form of Faculty development programme (FDP) s in the medical field will be useful and would improve the outcome of the research activities
  2. More than 50% of the study participants were of the opinion the postgraduates should learn more about research and conduct research more scientifically. What remains inconclusive is whether research should be introduced at the undergraduate level
  3. Twenty-five percent of the study participants were of the opinion that getting involved in research will over burden them [Table 4].
Table 4: Attitude scores toward scientific publications

Click here to view


  1. Majority of the study participants felt that motivation to take up research by receiving timely incentives for publication's would persuade them to take up more research activities [Table 5]
  2. Thirty-six percent of the study participants felt that the reasons for the non-indulgence in research were personal and 21% were inclusive regarding the availability of resource's for conducting the research.
Table 5: Barriers for research publications by participants

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Basic intention of this study was to investigate medical faculty members' attitudes towards, barriers of, and intention to conduct research in pre and para clinical departments. In all 16 males and 41 females participated in our study among whom 24 participants were in the age group of 31to40 years,16of them between 41 to 50 years,14 were in the age group of 20 to 30years while 3 participants were in the age group of 51 to 60 years.

Fifty-six percent of the Total faculty were primed about the basics of the Research Methodology and that 53% of participant's felt that research methodology and training for the research in the medical field will be useful and would improve the quality of research [Questionnaire 2]. More than 50% of the study participants were of the opinion the Postgraduates should learn more about and conduct research in a more scientific way.

Twenty-five percent of the study participants were of the opinion that getting involved in research will overburden them along with their routine work [Questionnaire 3]. Majority of the Participants felt that motivation to take up research by receiving timely incentives for publication's would persuade them to take up research and that 36% of the study participants felt that the reasons for the nonindulgence in research were personal and 21% were inclusive regarding the availability of resource's for conducting the research [Questionnaire 4].

The results of our study revealed that faculty members had positive attitudes to conduct research, high in the future and reported moderately perceived individual barriers in contrast to the study conducted by Sabzwari et al.[13] who assessed Pakistani junior faculty members of four medical universities, and reported that the participants who were not involved in research projects had more negative attitudes than those who were involved in research. Moreover, >83% of study participants admitted that research was difficult to be carried out. According to Siemens et al.[3] such barriers and negative attitudes are expected to lower research productivity in terms of intention to get engaged in research activities. Such contradiction might be explained by their positions that mandate them to conduct research as a requirement for the national accreditation that has research productivity as one of its items.

On the other hand, another finding of the same study says that the majority of the study subjects agreed that research is helpful, promotes critical thinking and improves patient care. Hence, engagement of faculty members in research projects and workshops helps to enhance the positivity of attitudes toward scientific research which is similar finding in our study

The lack of time can be referred due to the burden of the educational workload for faculty members, lack of encouragement was the finding in the study conducted by Alzahrani, 2011[14] and this finding if consistent with our study findings.

The lack of research mentors for the master degree holders due to busy schedules of higher academic ranking (assistant, associate, and full professors) might prevent them from being engaged in conducting research.[15] This was confirmed by Roberts and Turnbull[16] who concluded that faculty members with higher qualifications clearly had more scholarly productivity and output while in our study majority of the study participants did not feel so.


  Conclusion and Recommendations Top


Major barrier to publications was financial aspects and the unavailable resources though it was considered important for the promotions and future prospects.

The Adage “PUBLISH Or PERISH” holds true in today's Era. To increase the no of faculty publications, the barriers both at the individual and institutional levels can be overcome by giving suitable incentives to the faculty members and encourage them to publish by providing all the resources needed and free excess to the information as well.

To generalize the results of this study and to have a better picture of the research and publications, the study can be replicated and conducted on a larger sample size by involving the faculties on the clinical side as well. To have improved and high-quality research productivity by the academicians for generating knowledge and promotion purposes, it is highly recommended to have frequent structured research programs involving training with limited number of the hour, regular mentoring and allotting suitable research funds as the national accreditation mandates research productivity by university faculty members in today's era of research to improve RPP.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the faculty members for having participated in this study and my sincere gratitude to my guide, faculty of MPH, and Physiology for their support and guidance in the conduct of this study.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.


  Annexures Top


Questionnaire I. Demographic status of Respondents

1. Name in full

2. Age

3. Gender M □ F □

4. Current academic designation Tutor □ Assistant □

Associate □ Professor □

5. Specialty

6. Years of teaching experience

1-9 years □

10-19 yrs □

20-29 yrs □

>30 yrs □

7. Have you taught UG/PG total how to conduct research Y □ N □

8. Total number of research publications

9. Have you been trained in basic MET Y □ N □

10. Has your article ever been rejected Y □ N □

If yes, cite the reason for the same

Questionnaire II. Questions to assess knowledge on Research -Part I

1. What kind of Research have you been involved in the past?

□ Qualitative □ Quantitative

2. How would you classify your Research into (Most of them)?

□ Descriptive □ Analytical

3. Can you classify Descriptive studies

------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

4. Can you classify Analytical Studies?

------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

5. Do you have knowledge regarding basic Statistical techniques?

------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------









 
  References Top

1.
Scaria V. Whisking research into medical curriculum: The need to integrate research in undergraduate medical education to meet the future challenges. Calicut Med J 2004;2:e1.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Srinivasan MR, Poorni S, Sujatha G, Kumar SN. Research experiences, attitudes, and barriers to publishing among the dental postgraduate teachers: A cross-sectional study. Indian J Dent Res 2014;25:454-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
3.
Siemens DR, Punnen S, Wong J, Kanji N. A survey on the attitudes towards research in medical school. BMC Med Educ 2010;10:4.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Hebert RS, Levine RB, Smith CG, Wright SM. A systematic review of resident research curricula. Acad Med 2003;78:61-8.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
James EL, Talbot L. Conducting research in general practice: Lessons learnt from experience. Health Promot J Austr 2005;16:41-6.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Brocato JJ, Mavis B. The research productivity of faculty in family medicine departments at U.S. medical schools: A national study. Acad Med 2005;80:244-52.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Dakik HA, Kaidbey H, Sabra R. Research productivity of the medical faculty at the American University of Beirut. Postgrad Med J 2006;82:462-4.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Hennink M, Stephenson R. Using research to inform health policy: Barriers and strategies in developing countries. J Health Commun 2005;10:163-80.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Forsythe LP, Frank L, Walker KO, Anise A, Wegener N, Weisman H, et al. Patient and clinician views on comparative effectiveness research and engagement in research. J Comp Eff Res 2015;4:11-25.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Mitwalli HA, Al Ghamdi KM, Moussa NA. Perceptions, attitudes, and practices towards research among resident physicians in training in Saudi Arabia. East Mediterr Health J 2014;20:99-104.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Aljadi SH, Alrowayeh HN, Alotaibi NM, Taaqi MM, Alquraini H, Alshatti TA. Research amongst physical therapists in the state of Kuwait: Participation, perception, attitude and barriers. Med Princ Pract 2013;22:561-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Murty TN, Fathima F. Peception and attitude of employees towards training and development in public sector unit. Int Mon Refereed J Res Manage Technol 2013;2:141-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Sabzwari S, Kauser S, Khuwaja AK. Experiences, attitudes and barriers towards research amongst junior faculty of Pakistani medical universities. BMC Med Educ 2009;9:68.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Alzahrani J. Overcoming barriers to improve research productivity in Saudi Arabia. Int J Bus Soc Sci 2011;2:5057.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Noorelahi MM, Soubhanneyaz AA, Kasim KA. Perceptions, barriers, and practices of medical research among students at Taibah College of Medicine, Madinah, Saudi Arabia. Adv Med Educ Pract 2015;6:479-85.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Roberts KK, Turnbull BJ. Scholarly productivity: Are nurse academics catching up? Aust J Adv Nurs 2002;20:8-14.  Back to cited text no. 16
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion and R...
Annexures
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed196    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded39    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]