C R I T IC A L C A R E
Job satisfaction and importance for intensive care unit research
coordinators: results from binational survey
Claire M Rickard
RN, PhD
Professor of Nursing, Research Centre for Practice Innovation, Griffith University, QLD, Australia
Brigit L Roberts
RN, Cert ICU
ICU Medical Research Coordinator, Department of Intensive Care, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia
Jonathon Foote
RN, Cert ICU
Research Officer/Laboratory Manager, Department of Intensive Care, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville, SA, Australia
Matthew R McGrail
BSc (Hons)
Statistician/PhD Candidate, Monash University School of Rural Health, Latrobe Regional Hospital, Moe, Vic, Australia
Submitted for publication: 8 August 2005
Accepted for publication: 8 April 2006
Correspondence:
Claire M Rickard
Research Centre for Practice Innovation
Griffith University
170 Kessels Road
Nathan QLD 4III
Australia
Telephone: þ61 (0) 7 3735 6460
E-mail: c.rickard@griffith.edu.au
1640
R I C K A R D C M , R O B E R T S B L , F O O T E J & M c G R A I L M R ( 2 0 0 7 ) Journal of
Clinical Nursing 16, 1640–1650
Job satisfaction and importance for intensive care unit research coordinators: results
from binational survey
Objective. To measure Intensive Care Unit Research coordinator job satisfaction
and importance and to identify priorities for role development.
Background. Research coordinator numbers are growing internationally in response
to increasing clinical research activity. In Australia, 1% of registered nurses work
principally in research, many as Research coordinators. Internationally, the
Association of Clinical Research Professionals currently has 6536 certified Research
coordinators in 13 countries, with likely additional large numbers practicing
without the voluntary certification. Research coordinators are almost always nurses,
but little is know about this emerging specialty.
Design. Cross-sectional study using anonymous self-report questionnaire.
Methods. After ethics approval, the McCloskey–Mueller Satisfaction Scale and
McCloskey–Mueller Importance Scale were administered via the Internet. The
sample was 49 (response rate 71%) Research coordinators from the Australia and
New Zealand Intensive Care Unit Research coordinators’ Interest Group.
Results. Research coordinators were satisfied with structural aspects of the position
working business hours; flexibility of working hours; high levels of responsibility
and control over their work. Dissatisfaction was expressed regarding: remuneration
and recognition; compensation for weekend work; salary package; career
advancement opportunities; and childcare facilities.
Conclusions. High priorities for role development are those rated highly important
but with much lower satisfaction. These are: compensation for weekend call-out
2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01713.x
Research coordinator job satisfaction
Critical care
work; salary and remuneration package; recognition by management and clinicians;
career advancement opportunities; departmental research processes; encouragement
and feedback; and number of working hours.
Relevance to clinical practice. Increasing numbers of nurses have been attracted to
this clinically based research position. These data contribute to the understanding
and development of the role.
Key words: intensive care, job satisfaction, nurses, nursing, questionnaires, research
personnel
Introduction
The demand for evidence upon which to base healthcare has
never been stronger. Health professionals, policy makers and
the public are increasingly research savvy and there is a
constant stream of new treatments requiring clinical testing.
This has resulted in new roles for health professionals who
specialise in research, in particular the Research Coordinator
(RC).
Research Coordinators (RCs) work within clinical departments, such as hospital wards, and are responsible for the
management of research undertaken in that setting. As such,
they specialise in a field of clinical research, such as oncology
or cardiology. The role involves various aspects of clinical,
academic, administrative and laboratory work. RCs coordinate trials of new medications that require testing for safety
and efficacy under strict conditions, as well as departmental
research undertaken with the unit doctors, nurses and other
health professionals. RC positions are almost always filled by
nurses who bring to the research role their skills in patient
assessment, education and advocacy. In addition, nurses
bring their ability to coordinate patient care between a
myriad of health professionals, hospital departments and
other health services. Anecdotal reports describing the
position abound with over 70 articles published, the majority
since 1990; unfortunately, research into the position is scarce
(Roberts & Rickard 2005).
Within the critical care specialty, anecdotal reports of RCs
have emerged from emergency/trauma departments in North
America (Seguin 1990, Unkle et al. 1990, Jones & MitchellInwang 2002) and Australia (Armitage 1997, Waller 2003), a
New Zealand coronary care unit (Williams 1999), and
Intensive Care Units (ICUs) in the UK (Jones & MitchellInwang 2002), USA (Knight-Bohnhoff et al. 1995, Anonymous 2003) and South Africa (Steere 1990). The descriptions
of the RC role in critical care areas suggest more involvement
in departmental projects than in some other specialties
where pharmaceutical trials predominate. Critical care RCs
seem more likely to undertake literature reviews, protocol
development, data analysis and presentation/publication of
results (Steere 1990, Unkle et al. 1990, Knight-Bohnhoff et al.
1995, Williams 1999, Waller 2003). The role to mentor other
health professionals in research processes and implementation of findings is also emphasized (Jones & Mitchell-Inwang
2002). Critical care RCs must be experts in the processes
for obtaining informed consent with unconscious and/or
intubated patients, as well as manage a setting where patients
may enter complex research protocols 24 hours a day, seven
days a week (Unkle et al. 1990, Knight-Bohnhoff et al. 1995,
Jones & Mitchell-Inwang 2002). The role in Australasian
ICUs has never been studied and only recently described
(Roberts & Rickard 2005).
RC numbers have continued to rise in recent years (Mueller
& Mamo 2000). In Australia, 1% of registered nurses work
in the research field, although the breakdown of RC vs. other
research positions is unknown (Australian Institute of Health
and Welfare 2005). A total of 10 723 RCs from 13 countries
have passed the examination to obtain RC certification from
the Association of Clinical Research Professionals since 1992
(Association of Clinical Research Professionals 2005). This
is in addition to the unknown number of RCs working
internationally without certification, which is voluntary,
involves a fee and requires rigorous assessment.
An important but poorly understood issue is that of job
satisfaction for those in the RC role. Only one prior study has
specifically examined RC job satisfaction in a survey of mostly
North American RCs working on a cardiac trial (Kellen et al.
1994). This study found average job satisfaction to be 3Æ6 on a
five-point scale (5 ¼ a great deal). Items ranked most positively were: autonomy, opportunities to increase knowledge,
challenges of doing research, patient contact and continuity.
Fewer items were dissatisfactory including: recruitment difficulties, patient deaths, inadequate salary, physician unavailability and excessive paperwork. A related study investigated
the RC role compared with a clinical nursing role (Mueller &
Mamo 2002). Interviews with 24 RCs in North America from
a variety of specialties identified both advantages and disadvantages in: relationships with patients and medical researchers,
2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1641
CM Rickard et al.
the acquisition of technical/clinical skills and knowledge and
work autonomy/control (Mueller & Mamo 2002).
Many anecdotal reports and reviews have raised similar
issues regarding the RC role. The autonomous nature of the
position is frequently cited as providing job satisfaction, as
well as the frustrations of professional isolation (Ecklund
1999, Williams 1999, Waller 2003). Most authors have
promoted positive views regarding the opportunities and
satisfaction to be obtained in the RC role (Raybuck 1997,
Williams 1999, Kenkre & Foxcroft 2001). Whilst this is
encouraging, there remains an absence of objective data on
the RC role obtained from prospective studies using validated
instruments to measure satisfaction. Furthermore, the issue of
RC job satisfaction amongst ICU RCs or for RCs in regions
other than North America, has not been previously studied.
The rapid increase in RC numbers suggests the position is
important for clinical research; however, to date these
positions have been somewhat ‘invisible’ and are rarely
recognized in professional career paths or industrial awards
(Raja-Jones 2002, Waller 2003, Roberts & Rickard 2005).
The UK has recently seen the recognition of research career
paths for nurses, including one for RCs (Kenkre & Foxcroft
2001, Kenkre et al. 2001). In most countries, however, RCs
exist in a grey area between the health professions, university
research awards, and the pharmaceutical industry. The next
stage in the development of the position is formal investigations that will provide reliable data. Identification of the level
of satisfaction and the related issues that promote or limit
satisfaction will be important to policy-makers, health
managers and RCs themselves as this new role continues to
grow within the world of evidence-based healthcare.
Methods
Design
Cross-sectional study using a self-report questionnaire. This
approach was chosen to provide a snapshot of the current
situation and to obtain data from the cohort of interest.
Objectives
The aims of this study were to:
1 Measure the level of job satisfaction amongst ICU RCs in
Australia and New Zealand;
2 Measure the importance of a range of job variables to ICU
RCs in Australia and New Zealand;
3 Develop priorities for role development based on the
comparative levels of satisfaction with, and importance
of, a range of job variables.
1642
This study was part of a larger survey that also examined
demographics, role content, role structure and perceived
positive and negative aspects of the role. These data are
reported elsewhere (Rickard et al. 2006, Roberts et al. 2006).
Study procedures
Permission was given from the Australia and New Zealand
ICU Research Coordinators’ Interest Group (IRCIG) for the
investigators to distribute the study information on a closed
emailing list. Participation was voluntary, anonymous and
took approximately 20 minutes to complete on a secure
website. Submissions were possible for a two-month period in
2004, with completed questionnaires delivered by the computer server over the Internet to the researchers. Computer IP
addresses were not collected so as to ensure anonymity.
Questionnaire
The previously validated, 31-item McCloskey–Mueller Satisfaction Scale (MMSS) (Mueller & McCloskey 1990) was
distributed. This tool was developed for nurses working in
the clinical setting. However, in the absence of an RC-specific
job satisfaction instrument, the MMSS was deemed appropriate as most RCs are nurses and based in the clinical setting.
Some MMSS questions were slightly adjusted to be RC
specific, e.g. ‘research processes’ for ‘delivery of care method’,
‘medical staff involved in research’ for ‘physicians you work
with’. We also administered what we have named the
McCloskey–Mueller Importance Scale (MMIS), an adapted
MMSS with identical job items rated for ‘importance’ rather
than ‘satisfaction’ as suggested by previous users of the
MMSS (Mueller & McCloskey 1990, Ajamieh et al. 1996,
Price 2002). Both instruments had minor variations to the
wording to be specific to the Australasian context, e.g.
‘annual leave entitlements’ for ‘vacation’, ‘academics’ for
‘faculty’. Permission to use the MMSS and clarification about
the meaning of various questions were obtained from the
developers. Principal components analysis with varimax
analysis was performed to assess the underlying dimensions
present within the MMIS. Only factors with eigenvalues >1
were extracted and only loadings >0Æ30 have been included.
Identification of priorities for role development
The relative importance and satisfaction scores were compared to allow a richer interpretation of satisfaction data, and
to develop priorities for addressing these issues. Issues with
low job satisfaction but high importance were considered as
the most urgent priority for action. Items ranked low for both
2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Research coordinator job satisfaction
Critical care
satisfaction and importance were interpreted as a second
priority, unless easily rectifiable. Items ranked high for both
satisfaction and importance were interpreted as a commendation for management and supervisors.
Ethics
Ethics Committee approval was obtained prior to circulation
of the questionnaire. An explanatory statement attached to
the questionnaire clearly stated that participation was
voluntary and anonymous.
Results
‘moderately satisfied’ ranking of the five-point scale. See
Table 1.
Research Coordinator satisfaction was higher for those
who worked with other RCs (MMSS mean 3Æ99 vs. 3Æ80 for
solo RCs), and for those who initiated their own research
(MMSS mean 3Æ91 vs. 3Æ80 for non-initiators).
Importance
The overall mean importance score was 4Æ27 (SD 0Æ99), i.e.
between moderately and very important. See Table 2. Many
(18 of 31) items were rated as moderately or very important
by 90% or more of respondents.
Sample
Relationship between satisfaction and importance scores
There were 49 respondents from the mailing-list membership
of 69 (response rate 71%). Respondents were predominantly
female nurses, with an age of 21–60 years (55% £40 years).
Most worked in the government sector and all held tertiary
qualifications. Over half had additional postgraduate degrees,
12% had completed and a further 20% were currently
enrolled in a research degree, such as a PhD. Approximately
half of all RCs were full-time and most part-timers worked at
least three days per week. Part-time RCs usually (67%) had
additional jobs, usually clinical roles, but also in education,
management, quality assurance, or other research positions.
Most (80%) RCs were the sole RC in their unit. A third
had been in the position for four years or more and another
third had undertaken previous research positions. Most RCs
were involved with pharmaceutical trials, multi-site trials
with the Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Society
Clinical Trials Group, departmental medical and nursing
research and trauma registries/audits. Over one third also
initiated their own research projects. Further information on
the sample demographics is published elsewhere (Rickard
et al. 2006).
The best and worst aspects as perceived by the RCs were
described in free text. ‘Best’ statements from this analysis
included: ‘building towards the future and endeavouring to
produce the best care available to the future patients of ICU’.
Worst aspects included: ‘having to keep an eye on the dollar’.
These aspects have been reported elsewhere (Roberts et al.
2006).
The difference between mean satisfaction and importance
scores varied from 1Æ8 to þ0Æ7. See Table 3. Few items were
ranked equally for the importance placed upon them and
satisfaction with that variable. For some items, importance
outweighed satisfaction and vice versa (Table 4).
Validity of McCloskey–Mueller importance scale
Factor analysis identified 11 factors under which the items
converged. See Table 5. Examination of the scree-plot (Fig. 1)
supported an 11-factor solution, explaining 77Æ3% of the
variance. These factors were fairly consistently grouped as
per those reported previously for the MMSS (Mueller &
McCloskey 1990). In addition we have termed the extra three
factors as ‘Work/Life Balance’, ‘Control/Conditions’ and
‘Compensation – Weekends’. Factor coefficients ranged from
0Æ25 to 0Æ94, with only three of the 11 having a score of
‡0Æ70. The item ‘working with ICU research staff’ did not
intuitively belong under factor 5 ‘Extrinsic Rewards’ (all
other items under this factor relate to salary/package entitlements). However, another correlation factor (of 0Æ31) falls
under factor 7 ‘Research Department’, which includes several
items in the area of inter-personal work relationships, and
seems a better fit. For three items, there was a significant
increase in alpha values if these were removed from the
analysis. Factors 3, 5 and 6 had coefficients of 0Æ79, 0Æ64
and 0Æ67 if the items ‘number of hours worked’, ‘relationship
with other ICU research staff’, or ‘interaction with other
disciplines’ were deleted (respectively).
Satisfaction
Research Coordinators were generally more satisfied than
dissatisfied with the position. The average satisfaction score
was 3Æ84 (SD 1Æ14), which correlated most closely with the
Discussion
This survey of RCs employed in Australian and New Zealand
ICUs found overall high levels of job satisfaction. The
2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1643
CM Rickard et al.
Table 1 Satisfaction scores
Item
no.
Item
n
6
5
8
29
22
13
19
30
15
14
11
7
17
31
9
2
18
21
28
27
16
26
4
25
20
24
23
1
3
12
10
Work normal business hours (non-shift-work)
Flexibility of your days of work
Amount of weekends off per month
Level of responsibility
Level of control that you have over your work
Your immediate supervisor
Opportunities to interact professionally with disciplines other than your own
Level of control over your working conditions
ICU medical staff who act as PIs, CIs or research director
Working with the ICU research staff (other RCs)
Option for maternity/paternity leave
Opportunity to work part-time or option to do so if you so desired
Opportunities for social contact with colleagues at work
Level of input into decision making
Flexibility of specific weekends off without being on call
Annual leave entitlements
Opportunities for social contact with colleagues outside of work
Opportunities to belong to ICU committees
Opportunities to write and publish journal articles
Opportunities to undertake your own research
Overall research processes in the unit
Encouragement and positive feedback that you receive
Number of hours worked
Recognition of your work by ICU clinical staff (i.e. doctors, nurses, allied health)
Opportunities to interact with university departments and academics
Recognition of your work from ICU management
Opportunities for career advancement
The level of your salary
Other aspects of your remuneration package, i.e. phone/laptop
Child care facilities located at or convenient to your organization
Compensation if you have to work on weekends
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
32
23
47
49
49
48
49
49
49
48
49
49
49
49
49
48
49
48
49
48
21
34
Mean
Very or
moderately
satisfied (%)
Very or
moderately
dissatisfied (%)
4Æ82
4Æ49
4Æ47
4Æ45
4Æ37
4Æ27
4Æ20
4Æ18
4Æ10
4Æ09
4Æ09
4Æ04
4Æ02
3Æ96
3Æ90
3Æ86
3Æ78
3Æ78
3Æ67
3Æ65
3Æ61
3Æ55
3Æ51
3Æ51
3Æ50
3Æ49
3Æ25
3Æ16
2Æ92
2Æ90
2Æ88
94
90
86
90
90
86
84
82
82
78
74
66
82
73
65
76
57
61
50
53
65
55
61
57
44
59
50
45
40
38
35
0
4
6
4
8
6
4
8
8
9
4
6
8
16
19
12
6
8
10
16
20
22
27
20
10
24
33
31
42
38
50
ICU, intensive care unit; RC, research coordinator.
average satisfaction score of 3Æ84 compares favourably with
previously reported MMSS scores of 3Æ27–3Æ44 in clinical
nurses (McCloskey & McCain 1987). The score is comparable to that of 3Æ6 obtained using a different five-point scale
in the only previous study of RC job satisfaction (Kellen et al.
1994). When viewed as an average cumulative score, the
mean satisfaction was 117Æ5 from a possible range of 31–155.
The generally good job satisfaction is encouraging and
consistent with many positive anecdotal reports.
The most satisfying aspects of the RC position were
structural (e.g. hours of work, autonomy) and relationship
components (with other professionals and researchers). These
items are consistent with those identified by RCs in North
American research (Kellen et al. 1994, Mueller & Mamo
2002). Least satisfying were items reflecting reward and
recognition (e.g. salary and promotion opportunities); these
issues are a concern.
1644
Research Coordinators ranked most MMIS items as highly
important with a mean score of 4Æ27 out of 5 (a mean
cumulative score of 132 out of 155). The results indicated a
group who place very high importance on most aspects of
their job, particularly the level of control over their work and
the quality of their workplace relationships.
When using importance data to identify priorities to
improve job satisfaction, clear patterns emerged. The most
pressing areas of concern were those ranked as highly
important, but of low satisfaction. The most concerning
problem was that of inadequate remuneration packages, all
aspects of which were deemed very unsatisfactory, with the
most outstanding issue being inadequate compensation when
required to work on weekends. At times of high patient
recruitment onto trials, RCs often work overtime, after hours
or at weekends to ensure that study requirements are fulfilled.
Many are not paid overtime rates or on-call allowances for
2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Research coordinator job satisfaction
Critical care
Table 2 Importance scores
Item
no.
Item
n
Mean
Very or moderately
important (%)
Very or moderately
unimportant (%)
30
31
22
15
16
13
10
29
24
26
4
1
5
25
14
2
23
9
8
6
19
17
3
27
7
28
20
11
21
18
12
Level of control over working conditions
Level of input into decision making
Level of control over work
ICU medical staff involved in research
Research processes in unit
Immediate supervisor
Compensation for working weekends
Level of responsibility
Recognition by ICU management
Encouragement & positive feedback
The number of hours worked
Salary level
Flexibility of days of work
Recognition by ICU clinical staff
Working with ICU research staff
Annual leave entitlements
Career advancement opportunities
Flexibility of weekends off (without on-call)
Number of weekends off per month
Work normal business hours (non-shifts)
Interaction with other disciplines
Social contact with colleagues at work
Non-salary aspects of remuneration package
Opportunity to undertake own research
Having the option to work part-time
Writing & publishing journal articles
Interaction with universities & academics
Availability of maternity/paternity leave
Membership of departmental committees
Social contact with colleagues outside work
Convenient childcare facilities available
49
49
48
49
49
49
49
48
49
48
49
48
48
49
49
48
49
49
48
48
49
49
48
49
48
48
49
47
49
49
49
4Æ88
4Æ84
4Æ83
4Æ82
4Æ78
4Æ76
4Æ71
4Æ71
4Æ69
4Æ65
4Æ59
4Æ58
4Æ56
4Æ55
4Æ49
4Æ48
4Æ45
4Æ45
4Æ38
4Æ38
4Æ20
4Æ00
3Æ98
3Æ88
3Æ69
3Æ60
3Æ47
3Æ38
3Æ37
3Æ22
3Æ08
100
100
100
96
98
100
94
100
100
92
100
100
90
96
90
92
94
90
83
86
82
80
75
71
60
56
53
43
53
43
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
4
6
6
4
10
19
13
20
23
18
20
27
ICU, intensive care unit.
this additional work and only some are able to take time off
in lieu.
Inadequate RC salaries as a source of dissatisfaction was
identified a decade ago, but has not been addressed (Kellen
et al. 1994). Most RCs have a salary of £AUD$55 000
(approximately €34Æ100) and one in five £AUD$45 000
(approximately €27Æ900). This is considerably lower than
RCs could earn if working in a clinical, education or
management position. Most RCs are highly qualified and
experienced nurses who may seek alternate positions if salary
levels are not addressed. The current situation probably reflects
a lack of certainty about where RCs ‘fit in’ to the various health
or research career structures. We suggest that starting salaries
should be ‡$AUD55 000 (approximately €34Æ100) gross plus
superannuation, a mobile phone and possibly a laptop
computer. For RCs with more experience, qualifications, or
who coordinate larger research departments, higher remuneration on a graduated scale would be appropriate.
Another key area of concern for RCs is the number of
hours worked. When workloads are high, such as when many
patients are concurrently enrolled into a trial, RCs often
work extra hours but are rarely given extra remuneration.
Part-time RCs may desire increased hours; however, as most
positions rely on short term funding rather than a dedicated
position from the ICU budget, there may be reluctance by
budget managers to do so. Research Coordinator dissatisfaction with excessive hours is no doubt linked to the reported
dissatisfaction with compensation for weekend call-outs and
the salary package overall.
A crucial area where importance far outweighs satisfaction
was that of recognition and career progression. Many RCs
believe their work is undervalued by ICU management and
clinical staff. This is concerning and surprising; the RC is a
key member of the ICU whose work provides evidence for
clinical practice and prestige for the unit. Feeling undervalued
is likely to be linked to poor wages, ill-defined position
2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1645
CM Rickard et al.
Table 3 Satisfaction scores compared with importance scores
Number
Item
Satisfaction
Importance
Difference
10
1
24
23
16
26
4
3
25
31
15
30
2
9
13
22
14
29
27
22
5
19
17
20
28
8
7
21
6
18
11
Compensation for working weekends
Salary level
Recognition by ICU management
Career advancement opportunities
Research processes in unit
Encouragement & positive feedback
The number of hours worked
Non-salary aspects of remuneration package
Recognition by ICU clinical staff
Level of input into decision making
ICU medical staff involved in research
Level of control over working conditions
Annual leave entitlements
Flexibility of weekends off without on-call
Immediate supervisor
Level of control over work
Working with ICU research staff
Level of responsibility
Opportunity to undertake own research
Childcare facilities at or convenient to work
Flexibility of days of work
Opportunity to interact with other disciplines
Opportunities for social contact with colleagues at work
Opportunities to interact with universities/academics
Opportunities to write/publish
Number of weekends off per month
Opportunity/option to work part-time
Opportunities to belong to ICU committees
Opportunity to work normal business hours (non-shifts)
Opportunities for social contact with colleagues outside work
Option for maternity/paternity leave
2Æ9
3Æ2
3Æ5
3Æ3
3Æ6
3Æ6
3Æ5
2Æ9
3Æ5
4Æ0
4Æ1
4Æ2
3Æ9
3Æ9
4Æ3
4Æ4
4Æ1
4Æ4
3Æ7
2Æ9
4Æ5
4Æ2
4Æ0
3Æ5
3Æ7
4Æ5
4Æ0
3Æ8
4Æ8
3Æ8
4Æ1
4Æ7
4Æ6
4Æ7
4Æ4
4Æ8
4Æ6
4Æ6
4Æ0
4Æ6
4Æ8
4Æ8
4Æ9
4Æ5
4Æ4
4Æ8
4Æ8
4Æ5
4Æ7
3Æ9
3Æ1
4Æ6
4Æ2
4Æ0
3Æ5
3Æ6
4Æ4
3Æ7
3Æ4
4Æ3
3Æ2
3Æ4
1Æ8
1Æ4
1Æ2
1Æ1
1Æ2
1Æ0
1Æ1
1Æ1
1Æ1
0Æ8
0Æ7
0Æ7
0Æ6
0Æ5
0Æ5
0Æ4
0Æ4
0Æ3
0Æ2
0Æ2
0Æ1
0
0
0
0Æ1
0Æ1
0Æ3
0Æ4
0Æ5
0Æ6
0Æ7
ICU, intensive care unit.
descriptions, short-term contracts and a lack of respect from
colleagues/managers. In addition, RCs were dissatisfied with
opportunities for career advancement. In Australia and New
Zealand, as in many countries, RCs have no recognized
career structure, either within the health professional (e.g.
nursing) or the academic research structures. The UK Royal
College of Nursing, in contrast, has well recognized RC
pathways from novice to expert, with clearly differentiated
appointment and salary levels (Kenkre & Foxcroft 2001).
Currently RCs are employed on a variety of employment
classifications, which differ by country and State. One
solution would be to employ RCs under the National Health
and Medical Research Council classifications. This would
allow standardization and improve visibility of the RC role.
Research Coordinators felt overall research processes in
their units were not up to the standards that they felt
important. Despite reporting high levels of responsibility,
control and decision-making input, it seems RCs are not able
to have as much influence as they would like in order to
1646
streamline the standard of research processes. This may
suggest that while the RC can control the quality of the
research projects they directly manage, they are not always
able to influence other researchers in the unit. This issue is
likely linked to the previously discussed undervaluing of the
RC role by ICU managers and clinicians. As the only ICU
staff member/s with a dedicated research focus, RCs are the
most likely to recognize areas of research process that could
be streamlined or improved, and we encourage managers to
seek RCs views and support them in implementing change.
On a commendable note for those who employ and
manage RCs, many job items that were highly important to
RCs also provided high satisfaction. These included the
structure of working hours; the Monday–Friday day shift
basis combined with flexibility is keenly appreciated by RCs
who are predominantly ex-shift workers. The autonomous
nature of the position with high control over work, responsibility and decision-making input is highly valued and
enjoyed by RCs. Lastly, RCs were strongly committed to
2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Research coordinator job satisfaction
Critical care
Table 4 High/low satisfaction vs. high/low importance
Importance
Satisfaction
Low <3Æ5
High ‡4Æ0
High ‡4Æ0
Maternity/paternity
leave
Low <3Æ5
Child care
facilities
Working normal business hours
Number of weekends off
per month
Flexibility of days of work
Control over work
Level of responsibility
Immediate supervisor
Control over work conditions
Interaction with other
disciplines
ICU medical researchers
Working with other RCs
Input into decision making
Social contact at work
Compensation for weekend
work
Salary level
Recognition by management
Career advancement
Research processes
Encouragement, feedback
Number of hours worked
Remuneration package
Recognition by ICU
clinical staff
ICU, intensive care unit; RC, research coordinator.
and satisfied by their interactions with other health professionals, particularly medical researchers and research staff.
Convenient child care was the only item to achieve both low
importance and satisfaction. Although the importance score
was influenced by those who did not have children, the low
mean satisfaction score did not change when isolated to those
(n ¼ 21) for whom child care was of moderate or very high
importance. Maternity/paternity leave was also of low importance, but of high satisfaction. In Australia, 12 months unpaid
maternity leave is standard and nurses receive 12 weeks paid
leave. There was much missing data for both items’ satisfaction but almost none for importance. Therefore, mean
satisfaction for these items probably reflects those who
actually use them, whereas mean importance scores were
reduced by the many RCs without young children. Whilst
maternity/paternity leave provisions appear adequate to
return successfully to work early, or at all, improvements in
childcare facilities are needed. The significant missing MMSS
data for these questions pose issues in the use of the tool. We
did not substitute values for missing data but possibly a score
of 3 ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ should be used. This issue
has not been raised by previous MMSS users.
The use of the previously validated MMSS to measure job
satisfaction levels was a strength of this study along with an
acceptable response rate. However, there were some limitations of this method. The tool was developed for clinical
nurses and may not capture all of the concepts inherent to RC
satisfaction. Our application of the tool as a web-based
questionnaire has not been previously undertaken and, whilst
the guaranteed anonymity may have encouraged honest
answers, it may have allowed RCs to submit more than one
survey. We found no evidence of this and, considering the
time required to complete the questionnaire, this seems
unlikely. Our sample from the Australian and New Zealand
ICU group somewhat limits the generalizability of results to
this region and specialty. There is variability between RC role
structures and functions in different institutions and, while
we have reported overall satisfaction and importance levels,
we did not analyse for the effect that demographic, educational or job-related factors may have on satisfaction. Despite
this, most variables had the majority of responses in one
direction (positive or negative). Australasian ICUs are on the
whole relatively homogenous, being ‘closed’ (admitting rights
only to intensive care specialists), having ICU-only nursing
staff, and the binational research community is strong, with a
large number of collaborative multi-site trials. The RC
satisfaction data presented here provide a benchmark that
will allow future comparison with other specialties, nations,
and over time periods.
Inter-item correlations for the MMIS were observed to be
grouped in a similar manner to that noted by the developers
of the MMSS, although with two more factors (Mueller &
McCloskey 1990). This suggests that the concept of job
variable importance is more complex than that of job
satisfaction. Some MMIS item loadings were split
between ‡ two factors at values of ‡0Æ30, although in most
cases there was a clearly dominant value. The extra three
MMIS factors that emerged in our analysis seemed to
correspond to the domains of Safety (Work/Life balance,
Compensation-Weekends), and Psychological Rewards (Control/Conditions) as conceptualized in the three factor (Safety/
Social/Psychological) nursing rewards/satisfaction model
(McCloskey 1974, Mueller & McCloskey 1990). Three
items, when removed, displayed a significant increase in the
Cronbach’s alpha. These items may be too general to convey
a specific concept and, perhaps, should be dropped. Future
work should further assess the MMIS, particularly where
there is ‡2:1 ratio of participants to items (Kline 1994). Our
ratio was lower; however, it provides the first data supporting
validity of the MMIS. The ability to measure both job
satisfaction and the perceived importance of job variables is
beneficial when interpreting satisfaction scores. We hope that
2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1647
CM Rickard et al.
Table 5 Factor analysis for McCloskey–Mueller importance scale
Factor
Importance – items
Professional opportunities
Undertaking own research
Write & publish journal articles
Membership of departmental committees
Interaction with universities & academics
Career advancement
Praise/recognition
Having work recognized by clinical staff
Receiving encouragement & positive feedback
Having work recognized by ICU management
Work/life balance
Flexibility of weekends off (without on-call)
Number of weekends off per month
The number of hours worked
Family/work balance
Availability of maternity/paternity leave
Convenient childcare facilities available
Extrinsic rewards
Annual leave entitlements
Non-salary aspects of remuneration package
Salary level
Work relationship with other ICU research staff
Interaction
Social contact with colleagues outside work
Social contact with colleagues at work
Interaction with other disciplines
Research department
Working relationship with ICU medical staff
who act as PIs, CIs or research director
What the research processes in the unit are
What the immediate supervisor is like
Control/responsibility
Having responsibility at work
Having control over work
Having input into decision making at work
Flexibility days/hours
Flexibility of days of work
Having the option to work part-time
Control/conditions
Having control over working conditions
Work normal business hours (Non-shifts)
Compensation-weekends
Being compensated to work on weekends
Cronbach’s alpha
Alpha if item deleted
Eigenvalue
Variance explained (%)
1
2
3
4
0Æ83 0Æ13 0Æ01
0Æ82
0Æ15 0Æ01
0Æ80
0Æ13 0Æ06
0Æ77
0Æ26 0Æ10
0Æ54
0Æ08 0Æ14
0Æ23
0Æ03
0Æ25
0Æ84 0Æ03
0Æ82
0Æ15
0Æ60
0Æ03
5
6
7
0Æ05
0Æ00
0Æ05 0Æ12
0Æ11
0Æ11
0Æ04
0Æ04
0Æ32
0Æ01
0Æ01
0Æ09
0Æ29
0Æ34
0Æ11
0Æ15
0Æ25 0Æ17
0Æ09 0Æ05
0Æ14 0Æ04
0Æ00
0Æ10
0Æ16
0Æ02
0Æ14
0Æ10 0Æ02
0Æ10
0Æ01
0Æ05
0Æ14 0Æ16 0Æ10
0Æ24 0Æ17 0Æ22 0Æ13
0Æ21
0Æ05 0Æ04
0Æ03
0Æ01
0Æ21 0Æ01
0Æ05
0Æ28
0Æ12
0Æ02
0Æ10
0Æ23
0Æ17
0Æ10
0Æ04 0Æ13
0Æ00 0Æ10 0Æ03
0Æ17
0Æ21 0Æ11
0Æ16
0Æ16
0Æ10
0Æ31
0Æ03
0Æ12
0Æ02 0Æ03
0Æ10 0Æ04
0Æ01
0Æ01 0Æ15
0Æ37
0Æ07
0Æ00
0Æ10
0Æ16
0Æ12 0Æ28
0Æ91
0Æ79
0Æ41
0Æ02 0Æ05
0Æ00
0Æ02
0Æ36
0Æ17
0Æ08
0Æ08
0Æ00
0Æ04
0Æ94
0Æ91
8
0Æ04 0Æ05
0Æ11
0Æ01
0Æ05
0Æ02
0Æ34 0Æ08 0Æ05
0Æ06
0Æ09 0Æ01
0Æ23
0Æ15
0Æ03
0Æ02
0Æ13 0Æ36
0Æ31
0Æ03
0Æ11
0Æ05
0Æ03
0Æ19
0Æ28
0Æ41
0Æ12
0Æ15
0Æ03
0Æ02 0Æ25 0Æ46
0Æ01 0Æ01
0Æ05
0Æ22
0Æ22 0Æ05
0Æ12
0Æ78
0Æ01
0Æ63
0Æ28
0Æ62
0Æ21 0Æ55
0Æ10
0Æ20
0Æ12
0Æ05
0Æ19 0Æ04 0Æ05
0Æ13
0Æ28
0Æ23
0Æ23
0Æ38 0Æ42
0Æ14 0Æ21
0Æ05
0Æ06
0Æ09
0Æ40
0Æ74
0Æ73
0Æ43
0Æ15 0Æ01 0Æ10
0Æ03
0Æ20
0Æ07
0Æ20
0Æ07
0Æ09 0Æ12
0Æ15
0Æ13
0Æ37
0Æ16
0Æ67
0Æ59
0Æ20
0Æ28
0Æ10
0Æ04 0Æ17
0Æ08
0Æ18
0Æ06 0Æ27
0Æ05 0Æ21
0Æ08
0Æ24
0Æ02 0Æ11
0Æ14
0Æ31
0Æ02
0Æ17
0Æ01
0Æ08
0Æ07
0Æ01
0Æ05
0Æ08
0Æ16 0Æ02
0Æ00 0Æ02
0Æ08
0Æ23 0Æ01
0Æ09 0Æ10
0Æ28
0Æ15
0Æ85
0Æ10
0Æ75
4Æ63
14Æ95
3Æ24
10Æ46
0Æ08
0Æ68
0Æ79*
3Æ04
9Æ81
0Æ09
0Æ31
0Æ04
0Æ09
0Æ07
0Æ20
0Æ01 0Æ15
0Æ10
0Æ09
0Æ03
0Æ27
0Æ03
0Æ94
2Æ20
7Æ11
0Æ13
0Æ25
0Æ64
1Æ91
6Æ17
0Æ01
0Æ58
0Æ67à
1Æ87
6Æ03
11
0Æ02
0Æ09
0Æ36
0Æ00
0Æ04
0Æ09
0Æ05
10
0Æ02
0Æ14
0Æ18
0Æ06
0Æ04
0Æ02
0Æ05
9
0Æ04
0Æ01
0Æ34
0Æ01
0Æ05
0Æ00
0Æ06
0Æ02
0Æ08
0Æ16
0Æ08
0Æ04 0Æ13
0Æ16 0Æ09
0Æ09
0Æ05 0Æ16
0Æ07
0Æ79 0Æ07
0Æ20
0Æ01 0Æ08
0Æ15
0Æ02 0Æ17
0Æ06 0Æ46
0Æ11
0Æ76
0Æ08
0Æ72 0Æ19
0Æ67 0Æ02
0Æ08 0Æ02
0Æ06 0Æ11
0Æ24
0Æ00
0Æ06 0Æ22
0Æ06 0Æ06
0Æ00
0Æ34
0Æ84 0Æ08
0Æ16
0Æ59
0Æ45 0Æ14
0Æ05
0Æ28 0Æ06
0Æ02 0Æ15
0Æ08
0Æ73 0Æ03
0Æ71
0Æ15
0Æ02
0Æ59
0Æ00
0Æ61
0Æ08
0Æ54
0Æ02
0Æ36
0Æ86
n/a
1Æ73
5Æ59
1Æ59
5Æ14
1Æ42
4Æ59
1Æ20
3Æ86
1Æ12
3Æ61
ICU, intensive care unit.
*If ‘the number of hours worked’ deleted.
If ‘work relationship with other ICU research staff’ deleted.
à
If ‘interaction with other disciplines’ deleted’.
1648
2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Research coordinator job satisfaction
Critical care
Screen-Plot of MMIS items
5
Eigen value
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 1 Scree-plot of McCloskey–Mueller
importance scale items.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
this fills the need for such a tool as identified by previous
researchers (Mueller & McCloskey 1990, Ajamieh et al.
1996, Price 2002).
Factor
Contributions
Study design: CR, BR, JF, MM; data collection and analysis:
CR, BR, JF, MM and manuscript preparation: CR, BR, JF,
MM.
Conclusions
Research Coordinators in Australasian ICUs have high
overall levels of job satisfaction. It seems the RC role is an
attractive position for those looking to specialize in research
but remain in the clinical setting. Research Coordinator
numbers have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s
and are showing no signs of abating. The specialty has
generated many reports in the professional literature but has
rarely been subjected to research scrutiny. This study clarifies
issues that need to be addressed as this emerging specialty
develops. Although RCs enjoy their job, they feel poorly
compensated, recognized and perceive a limited career path;
these factors are likely to diminish job satisfaction over time,
and need to be addressed. Priorities identified in this research
as requiring urgent attention are: poor financial remuneration, particularly for weekend call-outs; inadequate professional recognition; lack of career advancement opportunities;
excessive working hours; and unsatisfactory departmental
research processes.
Acknowledgement
We thank the ICU Research Coordinators who participated
in this research.
References
Ajamieh ARA, Misener T, Haddock KS & Gleaton JU (1996)
Job satisfaction correlates among Palestinian nurses in the
West Bank. International Journal of Nursing Studies 33, 422–
432.
Anonymous (2003) The role of a research coordinator. DCCN:
Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing 22, 270–271.
Armitage K (1997) Trauma at the new Children’s Hospital Westmead NSW: the role of the trauma research nurse. Australian
Emergency Nursing Journal 1, 21.
Association of Clinical Research Professionals (2005) Clinical
Research Coordinator Certification Guide 2006. Available at:
http://www.acrpnet.org/certification/ich/crc/general.html (accessed
20 December 2005).
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2005) Nursing and
Midwifery Labour Force 2003. Canberra, 1–40.
Ecklund DJ (1999) Establishing a research coordinator network:
the birth of an idea. Journal of Nursing Administration 29,
20–25.
Jones CM & Mitchell-Inwang C (2002) New roles for nurses in
critical care: the research nurse practitioner. Care of the Critically
Ill 18, 110–114.
Kellen JC, Schron EB, McBride R, Hale C, Campion J, Handshaw K,
Inkster M & Ettinger A (1994) A survey of clinical trial
coordinators: factors influencing job satisfaction and turnover.
Cardiovascular Nursing 30, 25–31.
2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1649
CM Rickard et al.
Kenkre JE & Foxcroft DR (2001) Career pathways in research:
clinical research. Nursing Standard 16, 41–44.
Kenkre JE, Foxcroft DR & McMahon A (2001) Research career
pathways. Nursing Standard 16, 39.
Kline P (1994) An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. Routledge,
London.
Knight-Bohnhoff K, Horne-Lucero L, Kory L & Fry R (1995) The
challenge of trauma clinical trials: facilitation through understanding. Journal of Trauma Nursing 2, 43–49.
McCloskey J (1974) Influence of rewards and incentives on staff
nurse turnover rate. Nursing Research 27, 114–120.
McCloskey JC & McCain BE (1987) Satisfaction, commitment and
professionalism of newly employed nurses. Image – The Journal of
Nursing Scholarship 19, 20–24.
Mueller CW & McCloskey JC (1990) Nurses’ Job Satisfaction: a
proposed measure. Nursing Research 39, 113–117.
Mueller MR & Mamo L (2000) Changes in medicine, changes in
nursing: career contingencies and the movement of nurses into
clinical trial coordination. Sociological Perspectives 43, S43–S57.
Mueller MR & Mamo L (2002) The nurse clinical trial coordinator:
benefits and drawbacks of the role. Research and Theory for
Nursing Practice 16, 33–42.
Price M (2002) Job satisfaction of registered nurses working in an
acute hospital. British Journal of Nursing 11, 275–280.
Raja-Jones H (2002) Role boundaries – research nurse or clinical
nurse specialist? A literature review. Journal of Clinical Nursing
11, 415–420.
1650
Raybuck J (1997) The clinical nurse specialist as research coordinator
in clinical drug trials. Clinical Nurse Specialist 11, 15–19.
Rickard CM, Roberts BL, Foote J, McGrail MR (2006) ICU clinical
research coordinators. Who are they? What do they do? Results
of binational survey. Dimensions in Critical care Nursing 25,
234–242.
Roberts B & Rickard CM (2005) The role of the intensive care
research coordinator in Australia: an invaluable resource for ICU
research. Critical Care and Resuscitation 7, 50–52.
Roberts BL, Rickard CM, Foote J & McGrail MR (2006) The best
and worst aspects of the ICU research coordinator role. Nursing in
Critical Care 11, 128–135.
Seguin DA (1990) My role as research coordinator. Critical Care
Nursing Quarterly 12, 39–44.
Steere J (1990) A trialist’s perspective of conducting research in ICU.
Nursing RSA Verpleging 5, 19–20.
Unkle DW, Talucci RC, Morgan TO & Schwab CW (1990) Trauma
research nurse: a career option. Dimensions of Critical Care
Nursing 9, 296–300.
Waller J (2003) An insight into the role of the clinical trials coordinator. Australian Nursing Journal 10 (S. 1–2).
Williams B (1999) Getting a job as a research nurse. Nursing
New Zealand 5, 14–16.
2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd