A cross-sectional study of United States Academic-clinical research collaborations: Characteristics, resources, benefits and outcomes.

Aims: The aims of the study were to compare characteristics, resources, benefits and outcomes of academic-clinical collaborations of nursing researcher leaders from academic, clinical and joint-employer sites.

Background: Few research-based publications addressed academic-clinical research collaborations. New knowledge could increase nursing and multidisciplinary research productivity, including implementation science.

Design: An anonymous survey using a 40-item questionnaire.

Methods: Information letters with a link to the questionnaire were emailed to United States nursing research leaders. Data were grouped by institution type: academic, clinical or joint-employer. Analyses included Kruskal-Wallis tests for ordered responses, Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical responses and Cohen's Kappa agreement statistic for expected and actual time devoted to research. STROBE guidelines were followed.

Results: Of 120 respondents from academic (n = 60; 50.0%), clinical (n = 53; 41.2%) and joint-employer (n = 7; 5.8%) sites, 78.3%, 92.3% and 100%, respectively, were from metropolitan areas. Mean (SD) priority for active collaborations was higher at joint-employer sites; p = .002. Clinical sites were more likely to have directors of evidence-based practice (p = .031) and informatics (p = .008) and librarians (p = .029). Sites with collaborations were more likely to have access to research subjects (p = .008) and post-award research account management (p = .045). By collaboration status, there were no differences in the number of ethics board-approved studies. Collaborating site benefits were perceived to be executive leadership support (p = .003), greater research engagement by clinical nurses (p = .048), more co-authored publications (p = .048) and more abstracts accepted at national meetings (p = .044). Despite more resources and perceived benefits, outcomes did not differ by collaboration status.

Conclusions: Sites with and without academic-clinical research collaborations differed; however, outcomes were similar. Future efforts should focus on nurse scientist collaboration to address important clinical questions aimed at improving clinical outcomes.

Relevance To Clinical Practice: Despite some successful outcomes, potential benefits of academic-clinical research collaborations have not been fully actualised.