Skip to main content

Table 6 Perspectives on institution-level factors

From: Do health care institutions value research? A mixed methods study of barriers and facilitators to methodological rigor in pediatric randomized trials

09 I think that other people view [research] as kind of a thorn in their side. It’s something they play along with if they have to and the division head tells them they have to.
09 You work separately or in parallel and not necessarily the team as much, and I think that’s part of the challenge. You view the study as important, they view the results as important, but they don’t want to go through the pain of finding out the results because it impacts on what they do clinically.
03 Where we get into the biggest problems is if we take a person who’s very knowledgeable and very confident in how to care for patients with [disease], so they’re experts and masters in clinical care, and they just assume that that carries over into being an expert in clinical research.
01 So because we get donated funds, a fairly large amount of donated funds proportionally speaking in [disease], we’re able to support the personnel to perform the trials.
06 We have the help of the research institute and you can have a person for any kind of question or any kind of design that can help, and we have access to those kinds of resources.
09 I think the fact that [research network] is there enables you to think of multi-centre RCTs, whereas if it wasn’t there, you’d kind of have to go and find things from scratch. But by existing, it brings people together with shared interests and I think that that is a huge asset when it comes to even the thought of designing a multi-centre RCT. It’s like you want to design one for [research network].
07 [Research institute] has a great model where they require any grant that’s going out for external funding to be reviewed by three people from inside the institution.