Abstract：
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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
摘要：
背景：学术机构受益于研究人员采用领导职位，随后,领导力发展计划越来越重要。尽管如此,尚未对医疗保健研究人员领导力发展计划的证据基础进行评估.在这项研究中,作者回顾了医疗保健研究人员的领导力发展计划，旨在确定其影响以及影响这种影响的因素。
方法：作者搜索了MEDLINE，EMBASE,CINAHL和PsycINFO在2000年1月至2023年1月之间与医疗保健研究人员一起评估领导力发展计划。作者通过探索性荟萃分析和荟萃汇总综合了结果，并使用了医学教育研究质量仪器（MERSQI）和JoannaBriggs研究所（JBI）的定性研究清单来确定更高的可靠性研究。
结果：48项研究符合纳入标准，其中大约一半(22)符合更高可靠性的标准。MERSQI的中位数关键评估评分为10.5/18，JBI的中位数为3.5/10。与研究设计相关的低研究质量评价的常见原因，数据分析和报告。评估主要包括测量自我评估结果的问卷。干预措施主要集中在初级学者身上。总的来说,163/168分类的方案成果是积极的。教练,体验式学习/项目工作和指导与组织成果的增加有关。
结论：对于组织成果而言，教育方法似乎比特定的教育内容更为重要。为了促进组织成果，教育方法应该包括辅导，项目工作和指导。与内部或混合教师相比，外部教师提供的计划与组织成果相关的可能性较小，但这需要进一步调查。最后,改进评估设计将使教育工作者和评估人员能够更有效地理解与领导力发展的组织成果可靠相关的因素。
方法：作者搜索了MEDLINE，EMBASE,CINAHL和PsycINFO在2000年1月至2023年1月之间与医疗保健研究人员一起评估领导力发展计划。作者通过探索性荟萃分析和荟萃汇总综合了结果，并使用了医学教育研究质量仪器（MERSQI）和JoannaBriggs研究所（JBI）的定性研究清单来确定更高的可靠性研究。
结果：48项研究符合纳入标准，其中大约一半(22)符合更高可靠性的标准。MERSQI的中位数关键评估评分为10.5/18，JBI的中位数为3.5/10。与研究设计相关的低研究质量评价的常见原因，数据分析和报告。评估主要包括测量自我评估结果的问卷。干预措施主要集中在初级学者身上。总的来说,163/168分类的方案成果是积极的。教练,体验式学习/项目工作和指导与组织成果的增加有关。
结论：对于组织成果而言，教育方法似乎比特定的教育内容更为重要。为了促进组织成果，教育方法应该包括辅导，项目工作和指导。与内部或混合教师相比，外部教师提供的计划与组织成果相关的可能性较小，但这需要进一步调查。最后,改进评估设计将使教育工作者和评估人员能够更有效地理解与领导力发展的组织成果可靠相关的因素。
