title: Development and use of a research productivity assessment tool for clinicians in low-resource settings in the Pacific Islands: a Delphi study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Research performance assessments have proliferated, but research indicators for use amongst clinicians in poorly resourced countries have been ill-defined. The aims of the present paper were to determine a set of indicators as determined by clinician participants from the Pacific Islands and a panel of research experts for use in the performance assessment of clinicians.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two focus group discussions, one for nurses and one for doctors, were used to obtain the views of 28 Pacific Island clinicians of the BRRACAP Study about what the research indicators should be. A modified Delphi survey was used to obtain a consensus amongst 19 research experts, with Pacific Island research experience, as to what the indicators should be and then to rank these in terms of importance. A survey of the participants obtained data on the research tasks/actions performed 20 months after the initial research workshop. A resultant tool comprising of 21 indicators was used to assess the performance of 18 Pacific participants.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The Pacific Island clinicians determined that research was important and that performance should be measured. They identified research indicators that could be used in their settings and ranked their importance using a points system. The panel of experts identified implementation of research findings, collaborations and actual change in practice as more important, with bibliometric measurements low down in the scale. Although only 64% of the 28 BRRACAP Study participants returned the questionnaire, 39% of those performed more than half of the 21 indicators used. Of the 18 Pacific clinicians assessed, 7 (39%) performed 10 or more tasks.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  A research performance assessment tool was developed using process and output indicators identified by Pacific clinicians and a panel of research experts. The tool, which placed emphasis on process and outputs that were not bibliometric based, proved useful in assessing the performance of Pacific clinicians working in a low-resource setting.
authors.affiliation: South Auckland Clinical Campus, University of Auckland, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. alec@pacifichealthresearch.org.nz.
authors.forename: Alec J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Ekeroma
authors.affiliation: Office of Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. b.shulruf@unsw.edu.au.
authors.forename: Boaz
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Shulruf
authors.affiliation: South Auckland Clinical Campus, University of Auckland, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. l.mccowan@auckland.ac.nz.
authors.forename: Lesley
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: McCowan
authors.affiliation: South Auckland Clinical Campus, University of Auckland, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. a.hill@auckland.ac.nz.
authors.forename: Andrew G
authors.initials: AG
authors.lastname: Hill
authors.affiliation: South Auckland Clinical Campus, University of Auckland, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. t.kenealy@auckland.ac.nz.
authors.forename: Tim
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Kenealy
mesh_terms: D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000458:organization & administration* / Q000592:standards; D003299:Cooperative Behavior; D003697:Delphi Technique; D003906:Developing Countries; D017598:Efficiency, Organizational; D017144:Focus Groups; D006801:Humans; D009726:Nurses; D010139:Pacific Islands; D010820:Physicians; D012108:Research Personnel / Q000458:organization & administration* / Q000592:standards
references.citation: J Eval Clin Pract. 2011 Aug;17(4):644-50
references.pmid: 21276140
references.citation: Telemed J E Health. 2012 Oct;18(8):621-8
references.pmid: 23061643
references.citation: J R Soc Med. 2011 Jun;104(6):251-61
references.pmid: 21659400
references.citation: Health Res Policy Syst. 2013;11:2
references.pmid: 23317431
references.citation: Pac Health Dialog. 2004 Mar;11(1):59-78
references.pmid: 18181444
references.citation: BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:37
references.pmid: 20492706
references.citation: BMC Med Ethics. 2008;9:1
references.pmid: 18218097
references.citation: BMC Med Educ. 2007;7:18
references.pmid: 17596260
references.citation: Health Res Policy Syst. 2011;9:44
references.pmid: 22206247
references.citation: Ger Med Sci. 2014;12:Doc11
references.pmid: 24971044
references.citation: Rural Remote Health. 2007 Jul-Sep;7(3):776
references.pmid: 17696757
references.citation: BJU Int. 2012 Feb;109(3):321-4
references.pmid: 22243665
references.citation: Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:17
references.pmid: 24725961
references.citation: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013 Apr;53(2):197-202
references.pmid: 23373971
references.citation: Health Policy Plan. 2003 Sep;18(3):338-43
references.pmid: 12917275
references.citation: Health Res Policy Syst. 2010 Oct 31;8:33
references.pmid: 21034512
references.citation: Public Health Action. 2014 Jun 21;4(Suppl 1):S2-S13
references.pmid: 26477282
references.citation: Br J Psychiatry. 2007 Jan;190:77-8
references.pmid: 17197661
references.citation: BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:121
references.pmid: 24947243
references.citation: Health Policy. 2008 Mar;85(3):263-76
references.pmid: 17931736
references.citation: Contemp Nurse. 2013 Dec;46(1):6-12
references.pmid: 24716756