Leadership development programmes in healthcare research: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-aggregation

Background: Academic institutions benefit from researchers adopting leadership positions and, subsequently, leadership development programmes are of increasing importance. Despite this, no evaluation of the evidence basis for leadership development programmes for healthcare researchers has been conducted. In this study, the authors reviewed leadership development programmes for healthcare researchers and aimed to identify their impact and the factors which influenced this impact. Methods: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO between January 2000 and January 2023 for evaluations of leadership development programmes with healthcare researchers. The authors synthesised results through exploratory meta-analysis and meta-aggregation and used the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for Qualitative Studies to identify higher-reliability studies. Results: 48 studies met inclusion criteria, of which approximately half (22) met the criteria for higher reliability. The median critical appraisal score was 10.5/18 for the MERSQI and 3.5/10 for the JBI. Common causes of low study quality appraisal related to study design, data analysis and reporting. Evaluations principally consisted of questionnaires measuring self-assessed outcomes. Interventions were primarily focused on junior academics. Overall, 163/168 categorised programme outcomes were positive. Coaching, experiential learning/project work and mentoring were associated with increased organisational outcomes. Conclusion: Educational methods appeared to be more important for organisational outcomes than specific educational content. To facilitate organisational outcomes, educational methods should include coaching, project work and mentoring. Programmes delivered by external faculty were less likely to be associated with organisational outcomes than those with internal or mixed faculty, but this needs further investigation. Finally, improving evaluation design will allow educators and evaluators to more effectively understand factors which are reliably associated with organisational outcomes of leadership development

Why healthcare workers are sick of TB.

Dr Thato Mosidi never expected to be diagnosed with tuberculosis (TB), despite widely prevalent exposure and very limited infection control measures. The life-threatening diagnosis of primary extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB) came as an even greater shock. The inconvenient truth is that, rather than being protected, Dr Mosidi and thousands of her healthcare colleagues are at an increased risk of TB and especially drug-resistant TB. In this viewpoint paper we debunk the widely held false belief that healthcare workers are somehow immune to TB disease (TB-proof) and explore some of the key factors contributing to the pervasive stigmatization and subsequent non-disclosure of occupational TB. Our front-line workers are some of the first to suffer the consequences of a progressively more resistant and fatal TB epidemic, and urgent interventions are needed to ensure the safety and continued availability of these precious healthcare resources. These include the rapid development and scale-up of improved diagnostic and treatment options, strengthened infection control measures, and focused interventions to tackle stigma and discrimination in all its forms. We call our colleagues to action to protect themselves and those they care for

Agents of change: The role of healthcare workers in the prevention of nosocomial and occupational tuberculosis.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) play a central role in global tuberculosis (TB) elimination efforts but their contributions are undermined by occupational TB. HCWs have higher rates of latent and active TB than the general population due to persistent occupational TB exposure, particularly in settings where there is a high prevalence of undiagnosed TB in healthcare facilities and TB infection control (TB-IC) programmes are absent or poorly implemented. Occupational health programmes in high TB burden settings are often weak or non-existent and thus data that record the extent of the increased risk of occupational TB globally are scarce. HCWs represent a limited resource in high TB burden settings and occupational TB can lead to workforce attrition. Stigma plays a role in delayed diagnosis, poor treatment outcomes and impaired well-being in HCWs who develop TB. Ensuring the prioritization and implementation of TB-IC interventions and occupational health programmes, which include robust monitoring and evaluation, is critical to reduce nosocomial TB transmission to patients and HCWs. The provision of preventive therapy for HCWs with latent TB infection (LTBI) can also prevent progression to active TB. Unlike other patient groups, HCWs are in a unique position to serve as agents of change to raise awareness, advocate for necessary resource allocation and implement TB-IC interventions, with appropriate support from dedicated TB-IC officers at the facility and national TB programme level. Students and community health workers (CHWs) must be engaged and involved in these efforts. Nosocomial TB transmission is an urgent public health problem and adopting rights-based approaches can be helpful. However, these efforts cannot succeed without increased political will, supportive legal frameworks and financial investments to support HCWs in efforts to decrease TB transmission

Why healthcare workers are sick of TB

Dr Thato Mosidi never expected to be diagnosed with tuberculosis (TB), despite widely prevalent exposure and very limited infection control measures. The life-threatening diagnosis of primary extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB) came as an even greater shock. The inconvenient truth is that, rather than being protected, Dr Mosidi and thousands of her healthcare colleagues are at an increased risk of TB and especially drug-resistant TB. In this viewpoint paper we debunk the widely held false belief that healthcare workers are somehow immune to TB disease (TB-proof) and explore some of the key factors contributing to the pervasive stigmatization and subsequent non-disclosure of occupational TB. Our front-line workers are some of the first to suffer the consequences of a progressively more resistant and fatal TB epidemic, and urgent interventions are needed to ensure the safety and continued availability of these precious healthcare resources. These include the rapid development and scale-up of improved diagnostic and treatment options, strengthened infection control measures, and focused interventions to tackle stigma and discrimination in all its forms. We call our colleagues to action to protect themselves and those they care for

Next Generation Leaders Programme: a multi-methods evaluation of a leadership development programme for biomedical researchers

Background: Biomedical scientists have become de facto leaders for their research teams. Theories of expert leadership suggest that the specialist knowledge and credibility these researcher-leaders bring to their roles can lead to improved performance. Formal leadership development for biomedical researchers remains uncommon, and it is unclear whether existing leadership development programmes achieve improved individual and organisational outcomes. Our study evaluates the effectiveness of a single centre leadership development programme for biomedical researchers using a mixed-methods approach. Methods: 26 biomedical researchers participated in an 8 month single centre multidisciplinary leadership development programme. Participants completed prospective pre-test, retrospective then-test and traditional post-test self-assessments using the Primary Colours Questionnaire (PCQ) and Medical Leadership Competency Framework Self-Assessment Tool (MLCFQ). Pre–post pairs and then–post pairs were analysed for changes using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and compared with a parallel mixed-methods evaluation organised by Kirkpatrick levels. Results: There were significant increases in 3/7 domains and 1/5 tasks of leadership in the PCQ, in both pre-post and then-post paired assessments. There were statistically significant but small increases in 2/7 domains of the MLCFQ. The mixed-methods data showed positive outcomes at all Kirkpatrick levels. Participants said the programme was relevant, interesting and well-organised, with 63% reporting increased confidence and motivation. Participants had a significant change in behaviour, spending 1– 2 hours per week on group projects, which were successfully implemented locally. 42% of participants expected these projects to continue beyond the programme. Discussion: This study demonstrates a local leadership programme can have positive impact within a biomedical research centre despite time and financial constraints. We encourage future studies to utilise a mixed-methods approach to evaluating the impact of leadership development programmes

Changing estimates of leadership ability before a programme: retrospective self-assessments and response-shift bias

Background Most evaluations of clinical leadership development programmes rely on self-assessments. Self-assessments are vulnerable to response-shift bias. Using retrospective then-tests may help to avoid this bias. In this study, we investigate whether post-programme then-tests (retrospective self-assessments) are more sensitive to change in clinical leadership development programme participants than traditional pre-programme pre-tests when paired with post-test self-assessments. Methods 17 healthcare professionals participated in an 8-month single-centre multidisciplinary leadership development programme. Participants completed prospective pre-test, retrospective then-test and traditional post-test self-assessments using the Primary Colours Questionnaire (PCQ) and Medical Leadership Competency Framework Self-Assessment Tool (MLCFQ). Pre–post pairs and then–post pairs were analysed for changes using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and compared with a parallel multimethod evaluation organised by Kirkpatrick levels. Results A greater number of significant changes were detected using then-test pairs than pre-test pairs for both the PCQ (11 of 12 vs 4 of 12 items) and MLCFQ (7 of 7 vs 3 of 7 domains). The multimethods data showed positive outcomes at all Kirkpatrick levels. Conclusions In ideal circumstances, both pre-test and then-test evaluations should be conducted. We cautiously suggest that if only one post-programme evaluation can be conducted, then-tests may be appropriate means of detecting change

Development of Research Leadership in Healthcare: A Systematic Review

Systematic Revie