Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Research productivity of staff in NHS mental health trusts: comparison using the Leiden method

  • Alex J. Mitchell (a1) and John Gill (a2)
Abstract
Aims and method

To examine research productivity of staff working across 57 National Health Service (NHS) mental health trusts in England. We examined research productivity between 2010 and 2012, including funded portfolio studies and all research (funded and unfunded).

Results

Across 57 trusts there were 1297 National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) studies in 2011/2012, involving 46140 participants and in the same year staff in these trusts published 1334 articles (an average of only 23.4 per trust per annum). After correcting for trust size and budget, the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust was the most productive. In terms of funded portfolio studies, Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust as well as South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust had the strongest performance in 2011/2012.

Clinical implications

Trusts should aim to capitalise on valuable staff resources and expertise and better support and encourage research in the NHS to help improve clinical services.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Research productivity of staff in NHS mental health trusts: comparison using the Leiden method
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Research productivity of staff in NHS mental health trusts: comparison using the Leiden method
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Research productivity of staff in NHS mental health trusts: comparison using the Leiden method
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Corresponding author
Alex J. Mitchell (ajm80@le.ac.uk)
Footnotes
Hide All

Declaration of interest

None.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
1 Department for Business Innovation & Skills. International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base: 2011. Department for Business Innovation & Skills, 2011 (http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/science/science-innovation-analysis/uk-research-base).
2 Wellcome Trust. Putting NHS Research on the Map: An Analysis of Scientific Publications in England, 1990–97. NHS Executive, 2001.
3 Department of Health. Research for Health. Department of Health, 1991.
4 Research and Development Taskforce. Supporting Research and Development in the NHS (Culyer Report). HMSO, 1994.
5 Department of Health. Best Research for Best Health: A New National Health Research Strategy. Department of Health, 2006.
6 Department of Health. Research Funding and Priorities. Department of Health, 2010.
7 Angell, M. Publish or perish: a proposal. Ann Intern Med 1986; 104: 261–2.
8 van Raan, T, van Leeuwen, T, Visser, M. Non-English papers decrease rankings. Nature 2011; 469: 34.
9 The Guardian. Trust research activity league tables. The Guardian, 2013.
10 Association of Medical Research Charities. UK public want NHS to support research. AMRC, 2011.
11 NHS Choices. Principles and values that guide the NHS. NHS Choices, 2013.
12 Department of Health. The Handbook to the NHS Constitution for England. Department of Health, 2012.
13 Cooper, M, Turpin, G. Clinical psychology trainees' research productivity and publications: An initial survey and contributing factors. Clin Psychol Psychother 2007; 14: 5462.
14 Atkinson, M, el-Guebaly, N. Research productivity among PhD faculty members and affiliates responding to the Canadian Association of Professors of Psychiatry and Canadian Psychiatric Association survey. Can J Psychiatry 1996; 41: 509–12.
15 Silberman, EK, Snyderman, DA. Research without external funding in North American psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry 1997; 154: 1159–60.
16 Schroter, S, Tite, L, Kassem, A. Financial support at the time of paper acceptance: a survey of three medical journals. Learned Publishing 2006; 19: 291–7.
17 Garfinkel, PE, Bagby, RM, Schuller, DR, Williams, CC, Dickens, SE, Dorian, B. Predictors of success and satisfaction in the practice of psychiatry: a preliminary follow-up study. Can J Psychiatry 2001; 46: 835–40.
18 Hay, P, Mulder, R, Boyce, P. The scientific practitioner in psychiatry for the 21st century. Australas Psychiatry 2003; 11: 442–5.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

BJPsych Bulletin
  • ISSN: 2053-4868
  • EISSN: 2053-4876
  • URL: /core/journals/bjpsych-bulletin
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Mitchell and Gill supplementary material
Supplementary Material

 PDF (46 KB)
46 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 12 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 55 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 2nd January 2018 - 21st July 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Research productivity of staff in NHS mental health trusts: comparison using the Leiden method

  • Alex J. Mitchell (a1) and John Gill (a2)
Submit a response

eLetters

Reply to Mitchell and Gill: Research productivity of staff in NHS mental health trusts

Rosalind McNally, Outreach Librarian
09 May 2014

To add to the discussion around research productivity of staff in mental health trusts, the North West Mental Health Libraries Group would like to draw attention to the proactive support which NHS Knowledge & Library Services (KLS) already provide in this area. A National Directory of Services is available (1). The study by Mitchell & Gill (2) refers to examples of support Trusts should consider giving to clinicians involved in research including 'good literature searching facilities and onlinejournal subscriptions'. Comprehensive literature searching by skilled information professionals and access to a broad range of authoritative andhigh quality journals are both core provisions of most NHS KLS. However KLS are proactive in collaborating with Research and Innovation departments to deliver a number of additional, often innovative services to support and foster research; listed below are some of the many examplesdelivered by NHS KLS in the North West:

*Introduction to Health Research, Critical Appraisal and Literature Search training *Literature searches - to ensure cost-effectiveness and viability by identifying existing evidence *Securing widest possible dissemination, sharing what has been learned by keeping stakeholders informed, contributing to the production of local Trust journals, and facilitating NIHR Journals Library (3)* Enriching grant applications by identifying collaborators, potential partners and building networks locally

* Document supply services to ensure cost effective access to material not available via subscription

*Expert input to workshops at R&D study days and conferences around resources available for research, audit and quality improvement

*Membership of the Trust Research Governance/Development Committee and working to support developments through Academic Health Science Centres and Networks.

In addition, this works towards the aims of the Health Education England Mandate 2013 (4) which explicitly states that one of their shared aims is to develop a flexible NHS workforce, receptive to research and innovation in order to develop changing service models. Another aspect of the translation of research evidence into clinical practice can be examined in the Psychiatric Bulletin article by Steele & Tiffin (5) whichexamines the integration of a librarian within a mental health team and the impact this has on staff activities.

We would encourage all readers working in NHS Trusts to make contact with their KLS to ensure they are making use of the wealth of support to research.

References:

1. http://www.hlisd.org/index.aspx (accessed 8th April, 2014)

2. http://pb.rcpsych.org/content/38/1/19.full (accessed 8th April, 2014)

3. http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/ (accessed 8th April, 2014)

4. http://hee.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/321/2013/11/HEE-Mandate.pdf (accessed 8th April, 2014)

5. http://pb.rcpsych.org/content/38/1/29.abstract (accessed 8th April 2014)

Conflict of interest:

None declared
... More

Conflict of interest: None Declared

Write a reply

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *