Limits...
Impact of international experience on research capacity of Chinese health professionals.

Liu T, Zhang L, Sun L, Wang X - Global Health (2015)

Bottom Line: The total IF of papers published abroad was associated with the duration abroad (P<0.01) and not with the age of going abroad (P>0.05).This study reflects the beneficial experience of working overseas.Overseas study should be prolonged.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Neurology, The First affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China. ltj_1989@hotmail.com.

ABSTRACT

Context: It is common practice worldwide for health professionals to study abroad. However, the outcome of such experience has not been rigorously evaluated in China. Our current study aimed to quantify the impact on research of studying abroad among Chinese health professionals.

Methods: A self-administered structured questionnaire was developed among health professionals in Harbin Medical University and its affiliated hospitals who had studied abroad ('returning' professionals) and health professionals who did not have experience abroad ('resident' professionals). 166 'returning' professionals (Group A) and 166 age-, sex- and specialty-matched 'resident' professionals (Group B) were included in the study. SPSS software was used for data entry and analysis.

Results: The total IF of papers published by Group A and Group B was, respectively, 1933.52 and 629.23 (P<0.01) and the number of NSFC was 154 and 34 (P<0.01), respectively. The total IF of papers published abroad was associated with the duration abroad (P<0.01) and not with the age of going abroad (P>0.05). The total IF of papers published at home, and the number of NSFC had no relationship with the duration abroad (both P>0.05) nor the age of going abroad (both P>0.05). The total IF of papers published at home and the number of NSFC were positively correlated with the total IF of papers published abroad (both P<0.01).

Conclusions: This study reflects the beneficial experience of working overseas. The opportunity for overseas experience should not be limited by age. Overseas study should be prolonged.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Total IF and NSFC of ‘resident’ and ‘returning’ professionals.(a) Total IF of ‘resident’ and ‘returning’ professionals. (b) NSFC of ‘resident’ and ‘returning’ professionals. Group A/A1/A2: ‘returning’ professionals; Group B/B1/B2: ‘resident’ professionals. NSFC: National Natural Science Foundation of China. For 3 paired samples (Group A and Group B, Group A1 and Group B1 and Group A2 and Group B2) statistical differences were found for total IF of papers (**P < 0.01) and the number of NSFC (**P < 0.01).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4340795&req=5

Fig1: Total IF and NSFC of ‘resident’ and ‘returning’ professionals.(a) Total IF of ‘resident’ and ‘returning’ professionals. (b) NSFC of ‘resident’ and ‘returning’ professionals. Group A/A1/A2: ‘returning’ professionals; Group B/B1/B2: ‘resident’ professionals. NSFC: National Natural Science Foundation of China. For 3 paired samples (Group A and Group B, Group A1 and Group B1 and Group A2 and Group B2) statistical differences were found for total IF of papers (**P < 0.01) and the number of NSFC (**P < 0.01).

Mentions: The IF of papers published individually at home of ‘returning’ professionals (Group A in Table 2) ranged from 0.00 to 113.07 (mean, 11.65) and the number of NSFC ranged from 0 to 7 (mean, 0.93). The total IF of papers published at home by Group A was 1933.52 and the number of NSFC was 154. The total IF of papers published at home by Group A1 and Group A2 was 1304.28 and 629.24, respectively. The number of NSFC of Group A1 and Group A2 was 92 and 62, respectively. In contrast, the IF of per individual in ‘resident’ professionals (Group B in Table 3) ranged from 0.00 to 72.03 (mean, 3.79) and the number of NSFC ranged from 0 to 5 (mean, 0.20). The total IF of papers published by Group B was 629.23 and the number of NSFC was 34. The total IF of papers published by Group B1 and Group B2 was 437.13 and 192.10, respectively. The number of NSFC of Group B1 and Group B2 was 30 and 4, respectively. We compared the mean scores using t-test for 3 paired samples (Group A and Group B, Group A1 and Group B1 and Group A2 and Group B2 in Figure 1). For Group A and Group B statistical differences were found for total IF of papers (P < 0.01) and the number of NSFC (P < 0.01). There were significant differences between Group A1 and Group B1 in mean scores for total IF of papers (P < 0.01) and the number of NSFC (P < 0.01). The same situation applied to Group A2 and Group B2.Figure 1


Impact of international experience on research capacity of Chinese health professionals.

Liu T, Zhang L, Sun L, Wang X - Global Health (2015)

Total IF and NSFC of ‘resident’ and ‘returning’ professionals.(a) Total IF of ‘resident’ and ‘returning’ professionals. (b) NSFC of ‘resident’ and ‘returning’ professionals. Group A/A1/A2: ‘returning’ professionals; Group B/B1/B2: ‘resident’ professionals. NSFC: National Natural Science Foundation of China. For 3 paired samples (Group A and Group B, Group A1 and Group B1 and Group A2 and Group B2) statistical differences were found for total IF of papers (**P < 0.01) and the number of NSFC (**P < 0.01).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4340795&req=5

Fig1: Total IF and NSFC of ‘resident’ and ‘returning’ professionals.(a) Total IF of ‘resident’ and ‘returning’ professionals. (b) NSFC of ‘resident’ and ‘returning’ professionals. Group A/A1/A2: ‘returning’ professionals; Group B/B1/B2: ‘resident’ professionals. NSFC: National Natural Science Foundation of China. For 3 paired samples (Group A and Group B, Group A1 and Group B1 and Group A2 and Group B2) statistical differences were found for total IF of papers (**P < 0.01) and the number of NSFC (**P < 0.01).
Mentions: The IF of papers published individually at home of ‘returning’ professionals (Group A in Table 2) ranged from 0.00 to 113.07 (mean, 11.65) and the number of NSFC ranged from 0 to 7 (mean, 0.93). The total IF of papers published at home by Group A was 1933.52 and the number of NSFC was 154. The total IF of papers published at home by Group A1 and Group A2 was 1304.28 and 629.24, respectively. The number of NSFC of Group A1 and Group A2 was 92 and 62, respectively. In contrast, the IF of per individual in ‘resident’ professionals (Group B in Table 3) ranged from 0.00 to 72.03 (mean, 3.79) and the number of NSFC ranged from 0 to 5 (mean, 0.20). The total IF of papers published by Group B was 629.23 and the number of NSFC was 34. The total IF of papers published by Group B1 and Group B2 was 437.13 and 192.10, respectively. The number of NSFC of Group B1 and Group B2 was 30 and 4, respectively. We compared the mean scores using t-test for 3 paired samples (Group A and Group B, Group A1 and Group B1 and Group A2 and Group B2 in Figure 1). For Group A and Group B statistical differences were found for total IF of papers (P < 0.01) and the number of NSFC (P < 0.01). There were significant differences between Group A1 and Group B1 in mean scores for total IF of papers (P < 0.01) and the number of NSFC (P < 0.01). The same situation applied to Group A2 and Group B2.Figure 1

Bottom Line: The total IF of papers published abroad was associated with the duration abroad (P<0.01) and not with the age of going abroad (P>0.05).This study reflects the beneficial experience of working overseas.Overseas study should be prolonged.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Neurology, The First affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China. ltj_1989@hotmail.com.

ABSTRACT

Context: It is common practice worldwide for health professionals to study abroad. However, the outcome of such experience has not been rigorously evaluated in China. Our current study aimed to quantify the impact on research of studying abroad among Chinese health professionals.

Methods: A self-administered structured questionnaire was developed among health professionals in Harbin Medical University and its affiliated hospitals who had studied abroad ('returning' professionals) and health professionals who did not have experience abroad ('resident' professionals). 166 'returning' professionals (Group A) and 166 age-, sex- and specialty-matched 'resident' professionals (Group B) were included in the study. SPSS software was used for data entry and analysis.

Results: The total IF of papers published by Group A and Group B was, respectively, 1933.52 and 629.23 (P<0.01) and the number of NSFC was 154 and 34 (P<0.01), respectively. The total IF of papers published abroad was associated with the duration abroad (P<0.01) and not with the age of going abroad (P>0.05). The total IF of papers published at home, and the number of NSFC had no relationship with the duration abroad (both P>0.05) nor the age of going abroad (both P>0.05). The total IF of papers published at home and the number of NSFC were positively correlated with the total IF of papers published abroad (both P<0.01).

Conclusions: This study reflects the beneficial experience of working overseas. The opportunity for overseas experience should not be limited by age. Overseas study should be prolonged.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus