Research culture in allied health: a systematic review

A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture

Background

The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ' What does the evidence say about the 'problem' with 'poor' research culture, what are the benefits of 'good' research culture, and what does 'good' look like?'

Aims

To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution.

Methods

A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022.

Results

1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability.

Conclusions

There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals' well-being, career progression and performance.

Understanding the value of a doctorate for allied health professionals in practice in the UK: a survey

BACKGROUND

The need to transform the United Kingdom's (UK) delivery of health and care services to better meet population needs and expectations is well-established, as is the critical importance of research and innovation to drive those transformations. Allied health professionals (AHPs) represent a significant proportion of the healthcare workforce. Developing and expanding their skills and capabilities is fundamental to delivering new ways of working. However, career opportunities combining research and practice remain limited. This study explored the perceived utility and value of a doctorate to post-doctoral AHPs and how they experience bringing their research-related capabilities into practice environments.

METHODS

With a broadly interpretivist design, a qualitatively oriented cross-sectional survey, with closed and open questions, was developed to enable frequency reporting while focusing on the significance and meaning participants attributed to the topic. Participants were recruited via professional networks and communities of practice. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse closed question responses, while combined framework and thematic analysis was applied to open question responses.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 71 post-doctoral AHPs located across all four UK nations. Findings are discussed under four primary themes of utilisation of the doctorate; value of the doctorate; impact on career, and impact on self and support. Reference is also made at appropriate points to descriptive statistics summarising closed question responses.

CONCLUSION

The findings clearly articulate variability of experiences amongst post-doctoral AHPs. Some were able to influence team and organisational research cultures, support the development of others and drive service improvement. The challenges, barriers and obstacles encountered by others reflect those that have been acknowledged for many years. Acknowledging them is important, but the conversation must move forward and generate positive action to ensure greater consistency in harnessing the benefits and value-added these practitioners bring. If system-wide transformation is the aim, it is inefficient to leave navigating challenges to individual creativity and tenacity or forward-thinking leaders and organisations. There is an urgent need for system-wide responses to more effectively, consistently and equitably enable career pathways combining research and practice for what is a substantial proportion of the UK healthcare workforce.

Could you give me a leg up …? Models, frameworks and support structures to help aspiring clinical academic speech and language therapists

BACKGROUND

Increasing research capacity and capability for the speech and language therapy (SLT) profession is a key national strategic driver, with many speech and language therapists (SLTs) aspiring to a clinical academic (CA) career. There are known benefits but also acknowledged challenges with this career path, including limited funding opportunities and a poorly established career trajectory.

AIMS

To present models, frameworks and support structures that can be used by aspiring SLT CAs to chart research knowledge and skills, and plan career development. Organisational models are also presented to facilitate SLT CA career development and research capacity-building.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

A narrative review was conducted using a literature search of published peer-reviewed journals across four electronic databases: Medline, CINAHL, AMED and Embase, with additional search for grey literature through internet searches. Search results were screened against eligibility criteria by two researchers, with full-text articles retrieved and reviewed by four researchers independently.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

The database search and grey literature search combined identified 610 records. Full-text screening of 66 records resulted in 19 articles or grey literature sources being included within the narrative review.

MAIN CONTRIBUTION

This paper details models, frameworks and support structures pertinent to SLTs that can be used at an individual and organizational level to assist CA skill development and career paths.

CONCLUSION & IMPLICATIONS

The national climate is looking positive for aspiring SLT CAs. The time is now to take the initiative and use the support structures available to show our CA value and develop the necessary skills outlined within these resources to fulfil our ambitions.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject Interest in CA careers within the SLT profession is increasing. Whilst there are known benefits to embedding research within clinical practice, barriers exist including the strategic and operational steps individuals can take to make the career path a reality. What this study adds This narrative review has searched the literature for CA models, frameworks and support structures created for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals. These tools are presented and discussed, with special consideration and focus to the SLT profession. What are the clinical implications of this work? This paper will provide SLTs with the tools to support their personal CA career development as well as advocate for CA roles within their teams and organisations. Organisational models are also presented to support SLT managers to foster a CA path for workforce development.

Inconvenient sampling: Community-engaged and restorative justice approaches to genetic counseling student research

Genetic counseling research requires a comprehensive approach since it frequently serves as the foundation for clinical care practice. Genetic counseling students play a pivotal role in advancing the profession, as they contribute a significant proportion of the research conducted within the genetic counseling community. However, a prevailing trend of convenience sampling of genetic counselors has limited the diversity of perspectives in student research projects. This article promotes a strategy for greater inclusivity and equity in research by emphasizing community-engaged and empowered research through the perspective of restorative justice. Reflecting on the shadow of the harmful ideologies of eugenics in our profession underscores the need to amplify patients' voices and diverse experiences. Community-engaged research-in collaboration with individuals, families, and communities directly impacted by genetic counseling-transcends traditional research paradigms, empowering patients and addressing systemic inequities. Incorporating community-engaged research into genetic counseling student projects aims to empower future professionals to better understand patient perspectives and needs while working toward addressing historical injustices. This article explores the potential benefits and pathways of incorporating community-engaged research and restorative justice principles into genetic counseling scholarly work, promoting empathy, cultural responsiveness, and ultimately, a more patient-centered approach to research and clinical care. By embracing this collective journey toward authentic partnership in the production of high-quality evidence in genetic counseling student research and more broadly, genetic counseling can become a more just and inclusive practice.

Strategies for the Promotion of Primary Health Care Research in Portugal: A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

There are several barriers discouraging clinicians from undertaking research, including insufficient funding, lack of time, organizational issues and lack of support. The strengthening of research capacity is perceived from three levels: characteristics of the researcher, the environment, and organizational issues. To date, Portugal is lacking studies on this subject. The aim of this study was to identify the best practices to promote research in Portuguese Primary Health Care.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with family doctors with broadly recognized research work and other stakeholders. We selected a sample by convenience and snowball sampling. From a total of 14 doctors invited by email, 12 responded positively, and we subsequently included two other stakeholders. We conducted the interviews in digital or face-to-face formats. Two team members handled the coding of interviews independently. We kept all recordings and transcripts confidential, only accessible to researchers.

RESULTS

We identified 16 strategies: 1) increasing institutional support; 2) creating support structures; 3) redefining the residency program; 4) investing in research training; 5) redefining curriculum evaluation; 6) establishing dedicated time for research; 7) increasing funding; 8) improving access to research data; 9) being a research driver; 10) establishing a research culture; 11) working in collaboration; 12) creating formally organized research groups; 13) creating autonomous research centers; 14) improving the definition of the research subjects and study designs; 15) reviewing procedures for ethics' committees; and 16) reviewing the current selection of articles for publication.

CONCLUSION

Overall, a greater proportion of interviewees identified the following as the most relevant strategies for research promotion: institutional support, including technical and scientific support from public institutions, private entities and academic centers; the reorganization of working hours with protected time for research; increased funding directed towards research and breaking isolation in research, promoting teamwork with clinicians within the same area or from different professional backgrounds.

Exploring strengths and weaknesses in health services research culture and capacity

Objective Fostering a research culture and enhancing research capacity within the workforce is essential for any health service aiming to provide evidence-based care. This study aims to explore the research culture and capacity in a community health service setting and provide a comparison to previous published research in other health service settings. Methods Participants were invited to complete a survey consisting of demographics and the Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) tool. Median and interquartile ranges were calculated for each RCC item and compared to three Australian and one international comparison. Results A total of 73 staff members from Metro North Community and Oral Health service participated. The team-level scores for the RCC were overall the lowest. Comparison to previously published research using the RCC indicated marginally higher scores for individual-level items in our study across all domains. Individual-level items were very weak to weakly correlated with the team and organisation-level RCC items. Strong to very strong correlations were found between a majority of the team and organisation-level items. Conclusions Team-level scores were substantially lower when compared to individual and organisational levels. The item 'team leaders that support research' was positively correlated with various organisation-level items, indicating that if the respondent perceived the team leader as a low supporter of research the respondent perceived several organisation items also poorly. As an important stakeholder in enabling research in a health service, organisations should investigate the challenges experienced by team leaders in facilitating research and the support or training they may need.

The health service perspective on determinants of success in allied health student research project collaborations: a qualitative study guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

BACKGROUND

A research culture in health care organisations is associated with improved healthcare performance. Allied health (AH) students undertake research training as part of their professional degree qualifications. This may include participation in research projects, sometimes undertaken in association with health services. Co-supervision of these projects by health service staff provides research capacity building opportunities and staff-centred outcomes for the individuals involved, as well as improvements in clinical knowledge and practice within the local area. Also, publications from these projects contribute to the wider evidence base. Identification of barriers and facilitators to engagement in, and conduct of, these projects may optimise systems for improved health service outcomes.

METHODS

This formative evaluation used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide analysis of qualitative data obtained from semi-structured interviews with health service-employed allied health professionals, including clinicians and research fellows, who had supervised students on clinical-related research placements within the previous five years.

RESULTS

Eleven AH clinicians described 18 collaborative projects with 24 students from five AH disciplines across four universities. Three health service-employed AH research fellows described their involvement in these and other student research projects. Twenty key determinant constructs were identified and mapped across all five CFIR domains. Facilitators included health service cosmopolitanism, project adaptability and implementation climate (compatibility). Health service-employed research fellows provided readiness for implementation and a facilitator for project execution. The main barriers identified were cost to staff in workload and personal time and aspects related to project complexity. Differing student characteristics affected the relative advantage of collaborative projects in positive and negative manners.

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes the facilitators and barriers to the conduct of collaborative AH student research projects. Addressing these determinants when establishing each new project may enable health services to optimise communication, role delineation and project success, and thus ultimately, healthcare performance and patient care.

Australian radiation therapist's research capacity and culture: investigating the extent of assistance required to build research capacity

Introduction

Building research capacity within the radiation therapist workforce/profession is essential to guarantee research is embedded into core practices. Assessment of current capacity levels within organisation, department and individual domains needs to occur to establish a baseline and ensure research capacity building (RCB) strategies will be targeted successfully. This exploratory study aimed to identify the areas within each domain where radiation therapists would benefit from extra research assistance, that being research support and process changes, particularly in relation to the workplace and health sector.

Methods

Practising radiation therapists (RTs) within Australia were recruited through professional organisations and invited to complete the online Research Capacity Culture Tool (RCCT). The survey was conducted using Qualtrics with data exported to SPSS.V27 for analysis. Descriptive statistics and the Industry Specific Item Interpretation for Policy and Strategy were used to analyse and report the results.

Results

Survey participation rate was 121/2640 (4.6%). Within the Organisation and Department domains, the most research assistance was required in infrastructure (n = 92–37) and support (n = 66–45) categories, respectively. Participants from private sector (Organisation: 42.7%, Department: 53.7%) and metropolitan centres (Organisation: 32.6%, Department: 47.5%) required a higher rate of assistance when compared to their counterparts in both categories. The individual domain showed similar levels of assistance required across health sectors and work locations. Workplaces showed similar levels of complexity of research activity; private sector (62.5%) recorded the highest level of no research activity.

Conclusion

This study has provided insight into how the research capacity and culture of organisations and departments in which individuals' work will influence their abilities and opportunities to perform research.

Dedicated Research Seed Funding to Support High-Priority Clinician-Led Research: A Survey of Clinician-Researchers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Developing research capacity and supporting research engagement among health professionals are essential parts of bridging the evidence-to-practice gap. The objective of this study was to describe and assess the impact of research seed funding in promoting the engagement of nursing and allied health professionals in leading practice-based research studies within a health care organization.

METHODS

An impact assessment survey was administered to health professional grant recipients (n = 30) to collect self-reported observations of changes related to clinical practice, patient care, and organizational priorities as a result of the funded research projects. The electronic survey was developed in collaboration with an interprofessional advisory committee and contained 23 closed- and open-ended questions. Survey data were analyzed descriptively, and responses to open-ended survey questions were used to characterize the funded research activities and the perceived successes and challenges experienced by the research teams.

RESULTS

A large proportion of health professional grant recipients reported observing impact from their research studies on clinical practice, organizational priorities, and external networks. The grant funds were used to carry out knowledge dissemination activities such as conference presentations, publications, and sharing findings at professional meetings and networks. The majority of grant expenditures were used for research personnel, and the most common challenge to conducting research was related to the need for protected research time. Most grant recipients were interested in participating in another grant-funded research project in the future.

CONCLUSION

Organizational funding and support for research led by health professionals have potential impact on clinical practice, patient care, and organizational priorities. This study provides evidence to support the value of investing in continued and expanded research funding programs for health professionals.

Engaging Industry in Health Professions' Education: Benefits and Challenges

Effective partnerships between universities and industry facilitate health-profession students' learning and work readiness. However, developing sustainable industry engagement in academic curricula remains challenging. This study utilised Social Exchange Theory (SET) to explore the benefits of and barriers to industry engagement within health-profession preparation programs. A realist evaluation framework was used to consider factors that impacted experiences and outcomes for academics and clinicians who engaged in the development and delivery of curriculum for a new health professional preparation program in speech pathology. A sequential mixed-methods design was adopted to explore factors influencing clinicians' motivation to engage with the university, using an online survey (n = 18) and focus group (n = 5). Clinicians rated "personal development" and contributing to the "future workforce" as the highest personal benefits. "Sharing knowledge" was the highest team benefit, and "staff satisfaction" was the highest employer benefit. Time and workload were perceived barriers. Academics (n = 2) and clinicians (n = 3) who collaborated in learning and teaching experiences also participated in a post-engagement focus group. Three Context Mechanism Outcome configurations were shown to facilitate engagement outcomes: engagement as opportunity, partnership, and work readiness. In accordance with SET, the nature of exchange processes and professional relationships contributed to positive engagement outcomes for clinicians, academics, and enhanced health-profession education.

Promotion of research culture among radiographers in one UK NHS trust through journal club activities - An autoethnographic study

INTRODUCTION

The poor research culture within the radiography profession can be addressed through initiatives such journal club activities. The role of a research radiographer is best suited to drive achievement of journal club outcomes for research culture improvement; however, the cultural environment of healthcare providers presents challenges. This is an autoethnographic account of a research radiographer in promoting research culture among diagnostic radiographers in a single UK NHS trust through journal club activities.

METHODS

The study adopts an analytical autoethnography methodology to critically analyse reflective accounts of the research radiographer's experiences and the interplay with the cultural environment in which the experiences occurred. The reflective accounts are supported by locally collected data during a 10-month period of the journal club and published literature.

RESULTS

The establishment of the journal club received encouraging support from the senior management, university academics, library services and radiography professionals. There are initial signs of research culture improvement among participants of the journal club as observed through engagement in research related activities. However, cultural challenges including lack of time to explore gaps in research evidence, and prioritisation of clinical duties over research related activities, may have affected the achievement of expected outcomes of the club.

CONCLUSION

The research radiographer is well placed to encourage research culture within the clinical imaging department through targeted initiatives such as journal clubs. The long-term contributions of such initiative to departmental efficiency and quality service delivery should encourage optimum support to actualize expected outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Encouragement of journal clubs as a means of improving research culture within clinical radiography teams, driven by research radiographers. Encouragement of management support for the achievement of set outcomes of journal clubs.

"How do I keep this live in my mind?" Allied Health Professionals' perspectives of barriers and enablers to implementing good clinical practice principles in research: a qualitative exploration

BACKGROUND

Allied health professionals (AHPs) engaged in research are expected to comply with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) principles to protect participant safety and wellbeing and enhance data integrity. Currently, few studies have explored health professionals' perceptions of implementing and adhering to GCP principles in research with none of these including AHPs. Such knowledge is vital to guide future interventions to increase adherence to GCP principles. This study aimed to identify the barriers and enablers AHPs experience when applying GCP principles to research conduct in a public hospital and health service, as well as their perceived support needs.

METHODS

The study used a qualitative descriptive study approach guided by behaviour change theory. AHPs currently undertaking ethically approved research within a public health service in Queensland, Australia were interviewed to explore barriers and enablers to adherence to GCP principles and support needs, with interview questions guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). The TDF was chosen as it allows for a systematic understanding of factors influencing implementation of a specific behaviour (i.e., GCP implementation) and can be used to inform tailored interventions.

RESULTS

Ten AHPs across six professions were interviewed. Participants identified both enablers and barriers to implementing GCP across nine domains of the TDF and enablers across three additional domains. Examples of enablers included strong beliefs about the importance of GCP in increasing research rigour and participant safety (i.e. from TDF - beliefs about consequences); applying clinical skills and personal attributes when implementing GCP (i.e., skills), available training and support (i.e., environmental context and resources); and alignment with their moral sense to 'do the right thing' (i.e., professional identity). Barriers to GCP implementation were generally less commonly reported but included reduced time to implement GCP and a sense of 'red tape' (i.e., environmental context and resources), a lack of knowledge of GCP principles (i.e., knowledge) and a fear of making mistakes (i.e., emotions), and varying relevance to individual projects (i.e., knowledge). Suggestions for support were identified beyond training, such as physical resources (e.g., prescriptive checklists, templates and scripts), additional time, and regular one-on-one mentoring support.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that while clinicians recognise the importance of GCP and want to implement it, they report barriers to its practical implementation. GCP training alone is unlikely to address these barriers to implementing GCP in daily practice. Findings suggest that GCP training may be more useful to AHPs when it is tailored to the allied heath context and supplemented with additional supports including check-ups from experienced researchers and access to prescriptive resources. Future research however is needed to investigate the effectiveness of such strategies.

Factors that influence genetic counselors' participation in research

Genetic counselors have skills and expertise in genetics and patient care that make them an asset to research and research teams. However, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) found in 2020 that more than half of practicing genetic counselors do not participate in research activities. Information describing factors that influence their research participation is lacking in the literature. This study ascertained genetic counselors' workplace and graduate training experiences to provide insight into factors that increase or decrease participation in research activities. A survey was distributed through the NSGC Student Research Survey Program. Practicing genetic counselors that graduated in or before 2020 were eligible to participate. The survey included questions about demographics, implementation of student research projects, research-specific resources in their graduate programs, perceived barriers and motivations, and current research activities. Interestingly, the majority of respondents participated in research activities between 2017 and 2021; the most common activities included: recognizing a gap(s) in knowledge (68%) and presenting an abstract or poster (64%). Factors that most significantly influenced genetic counselors' research participation included their interest in research (p = 0.0037), their motivation to do research (p = 0.0014), and their perceived intimidation by the research process (p < 0.001). These results provide insight into solutions for the workplace and graduate programs that could increase genetic counselors' research participation.

Allied health professionals' perceptions of research in the United Kingdom national health service: a survey of research capacity and culture

Background

With growing recognition of the importance of research in allied healthcare, the new Health Education England (HEE) research strategy articulates a need to transform Allied Health Professional (AHP) identities, culture and roles. An understanding of current AHP research capacity and culture is first required.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey targeted AHPs working in NHS health and social care settings across the United Kingdom. The validated Research Capacity and Culture tool was modified and distributed through research and professional networks. Aggregate median scores for perceived research success were categorised as adequate, more than, or less than adequate.

Results

Of 3344 participants, 3145 identified as HEE-defined AHPs. Individual- and organisation-level research success was perceived as adequate (median scores 4 (IQR 2 to 6); 4 (IQR 2 to 7) respectively). Team-level research success was rated less than adequate (median score 2 (IQR 1–5)).

Conclusions

In the UK, AHPs working in NHS health and social care perceive individual and organisational level research skill/success to be adequate. In contrast, inadequacies in research skill/support at team level were exposed, which may hinder successful integration of allied health research into everyday health and social care practice. Recommendations are made with reference to the HEE AHP research strategy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08465-6.

Experiences of hospital allied health professionals in collaborative student research projects: a qualitative study

Background

Active engagement in research by healthcare organisations and clinicians is associated with improvements in healthcare performance. Barriers to research engagement by clinician allied health (AH) professionals include competing priorities from high clinical workloads, lack of research skills and confidence, and lack of supportive research relationships. Collaboration with universities on joint clinical research projects is well recognised as a means of building health service research capacity. Research projects undertaken by students as part of their qualifying degree represent one such opportunity. However, there are few reports evaluating these collaborations from the health service perspective.

Methods

A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis to explore the experiences of AH professionals in the co-supervision of students completing research placements as part of their professional degree course.

Results

Fourteen health service employees from six allied health disciplines described collaborations on research projects with 24 students from four different universities. Student placements and projects varied widely in length of placement, extent of collaboration, supervision structure and study design. Three overarching themes were identified in the AH professional co-supervision experience: 1) Professional growth; 2) Mismatch with expectations; and 3) Focus on the student. Project outcomes were categorised from the health system perspective. These were 1) Healthcare performance improvements, including local increases in staff clinical practice knowledge and wider contributions to the evidence base; 2) Research capacity gains within the health service, including research knowledge and skill development, collaborative linkages and opportunity for future research; and 3) Staff-centred outcomes including increased job satisfaction.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the potential for AH professional supervision of students on research placements to contribute to healthcare performance improvements and research capacity gains within health services, alongside providing personal benefits for the AH professionals involved. Early consultation with a health service-employed research specialist may support health professional and student learning, team collaboration and project coordination for these student projects.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08119-7.

Research education and training for nurses and allied health professionals: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

Research capacity building (RCB) initiatives have gained steady momentum in health settings across the globe to reduce the gap between research evidence and health practice and policy. RCB strategies are typically multidimensional, comprising several initiatives targeted at different levels within health organisations. Research education and training is a mainstay strategy targeted at the individual level and yet, the evidence for research education in health settings is unclear. This review scopes the literature on research education programs for nurses and allied health professionals, delivered and evaluated in healthcare settings in high-income countries.

METHODS

The review was conducted systematically in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Eleven academic databases and numerous grey literature platforms were searched. Data were extracted from the included full texts in accordance with the aims of the scoping review. A narrative approach was used to synthesise findings. Program characteristics, approaches to program evaluation and the outcomes reported were extracted and summarised.

RESULTS

Database searches for peer-reviewed and grey literature yielded 12,457 unique records. Following abstract and title screening, 207 full texts were reviewed. Of these, 60 records were included. Nine additional records were identified on forward and backward citation searching for the included records, resulting in a total of 69 papers describing 68 research education programs. Research education programs were implemented in fourteen different high-income countries over five decades. Programs were multifaceted, often encompassed experiential learning, with half including a mentoring component. Outcome measures largely reflected lower levels of Barr and colleagues' modified Kirkpatrick educational outcomes typology (e.g., satisfaction, improved research knowledge and confidence), with few evaluated objectively using traditional research milestones (e.g., protocol completion, manuscript preparation, poster, conference presentation). Few programs were evaluated using organisational and practice outcomes. Overall, evaluation methods were poorly described.

CONCLUSION

Research education remains a key strategy to build research capacity for nurses and allied health professionals working in healthcare settings. Evaluation of research education programs needs to be rigorous and, although targeted at the individual, must consider longer-term and broader organisation-level outcomes and impacts. Examining this is critical to improving clinician-led health research and the translation of research into clinical practice.

Evaluation of research capacity and culture of hospital pharmacists and pharmacy technicians in a state-wide Australian public health service: A cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Integrating research with clinical practice is essential for evidence-based practice and continuous improvement in health care. Little is known about the research capacity and culture of the Australian hospital pharmacy workforce, particularly in rural areas and for pharmacy assistants/technicians.

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to characterise the research capacity and culture of a state-wide public-hospital pharmacy service at organisation, team and individual levels, and to explore variables which influence research confidence and success.

METHOD

An online, anonymous, cross-sectional survey using the validated Research Capacity in Context tool was emailed to all pharmacists, pharmacy assistants/technicians and non-clinical staff employed by a statewide pharmacy service in South Australia. Respondent characteristics and organisation, team and individual scores of research skill/success were summarised using descriptive statistics. T-tests compared results for pharmacists and pharmacy assistants/technicians and metropolitan-based and non-metropolitan-based staff. Regression analyses explored predictors of pharmacists individual research skill/success scores.

RESULTS

A response rate of 43.4% (n = 278/641, 19 sites) was obtained. Respondents were primarily pharmacists (68%) and pharmacy assistants/technicians (28%); 91% were practicing in a metropolitan setting. 47% reported no research experience. Highest scores for research skill/success were observed at the organisational level (mean score 6.0/10) vs. team (mean score 5.6/10) and individual levels (mean score 5.1/10). Within each level specific items that scored poorly were identified. Individual research skills/success scores were higher in pharmacists vs. pharmacy assistants/technicians (mean score 5.2/10 vs. 4.2/10, p < 0.01), and were not different between staff in metropolitan vs. non-metropolitan settings (mean scores 5.2 vs. 5.0, p = 0.77). For pharmacists, undertaking undergraduate or internship research projects or postgraduate research training were associated with higher individual scores of research skills and success.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

This research extends understanding of hospital pharmacy research capacity and culture, describes research skills and success in hospital pharmacy technicians/assistants for the first time and highlights low-scoring areas; these could be targeted to improve research capacity and culture at an individual, team and organisational levels.

Using knowledge brokering activities to promote allied health clinicians' engagement in research: a qualitative exploration

INTRODUCTION

Engaging clinicians in research can improve healthcare organisational performance, patient and staff satisfaction. Emerging evidence suggests that knowledge brokering activities potentially support clinicians' research engagement, but it is unclear how best they should be used.

OBJECTIVES

This study explores how embedded researchers utilised knowledge brokering activities to engage research interested clinicians in research.

DESIGN

A longitudinal qualitative interview based study was co-designed to investigate how experienced research fellows utilise knowledge brokering activities to facilitate allied health clinicians' engagement in research.

SETTING

In one large tertiary level, regional Australian health service, research fellows were matched with research interested clinicians.

METHODS

Qualitative analysis of three longitudinal semi-structured interviews for each research fellow was undertaken. Initial descriptions of their utilisation of knowledge brokering activities were deductively coded. Reflexive thematic analysis was utilised to generate a shared explanation of clinicians' engagement in research.

RESULTS

Three research fellows facilitated 21 clinicians' participation in and leadership of clinical research projects over 12 months. They utilised all ten key knowledge brokering activities with each clinician, with differing patterns and examples. Research fellows described using linkage and exchange activities of communicating and collaborating with key stakeholders, and they tailored knowledge management products for individual's engagement. Further, they described a broader learning journey where they clarified and monitored individuals' capabilities, motivation and their contextual support for research engagement.

CONCLUSION

When research fellows chose and tailored knowledge brokering activities to align and extend clinicians' research capabilities and motivation, they created individualised learning curriculums to support clinicians' participation in and leadership of local research projects. Health and academic leaders should consider structuring embedded researcher positions to include knowledge brokering roles and activities, specifically for research interested clinicians who are ready to participate in and lead research projects.

Pharmacy-related research for health in the Arab region: An analysis informed by WHO's global strategy on research for health

In 2012, WHO (the World Health Organisation) published a strategy on research for health based on the premise that policies and practices in support of health worldwide should be grounded in the best scientific knowledge derived from high-quality research. This strategy focuses attention on five interrelated goals: organisation, capacity, priorities, standards, and translation.¹ Whilst knowledge production and publication in many Arab countries have been on the rise, the overall global share of the Arab region in health research publication is smaller than its global share of population or wealth.² Inspired by the five WHO goals on research for health, this commentary shares factors and recommendations for consideration to enhance pharmacy-related research in the Arab region. These recommendations include establishing strategies for pharmacy-related research to address the context and local needs of the host country, creating intranational and intraregional collaborative research avenues, investing in research capacity, and fostering a culture of research in the workplace.

"There hasn't been a career structure to step into": a qualitative study on perceptions of allied health clinician researcher careers

Background

There are many demonstrated benefits for health service organizations engaging in research. As a result, growing numbers of clinicians are being encouraged to pursue research as part of their clinical roles, including in allied health (AH). However, while the benefits of having clinician researchers embedded in AH services have been well established, the career needs of those engaged in these dual roles are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to examine perspectives of the career pathway for AH clinicians engaged in “clinician researcher” roles within Australian health services.

Methods

A qualitative descriptive study was conducted, utilizing semi-structured interviews. Purposive sampling was used to ensure selection of varied locations, professions and role types. Results were analysed using thematic analysis. Trustworthiness was established using regular peer debriefing during theme development, and respondent validation of final themes.

Results

Fifty-seven AH clinician researchers, including those who did and did not have research as a formal component of their current role, participated in semi-structured interviews. Key themes were as follows: (1) clinician researchers prefer roles which are embedded in health services; (2) current opportunities for clinician researcher roles in health are insufficient; (3) there are deficiencies in the pathway for clinician researcher careers; (4) clinician researchers are not always valued or incentivized by health services; (5) the current career challenges impair the viability of clinician researcher careers; and (6) the clinician researcher career path has been improving, and there is hope it will continue to improve.

Conclusion

This study outlines a number of weaknesses in the current career structure and opportunities for AH clinician researchers in Australian health services. In particular, while there are strong intrinsic drivers to pursue this dual career, extrinsic drivers are poorly developed, including a lack of job opportunities, an unstable career pathway and a lack of valuing or incentivizing this career choice within health services. This often means that clinician researchers feel compelled to choose between a research or clinical career, leading to loss of this valuable combined skill set. The findings of this research may assist health services in developing and supporting improved clinician researcher career pathways.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-021-00801-2.

Rethinking Health Professionals’ Motivation to Do Research: A Systematic Review

Background

Health professionals’ engagement in translational health and medical research (HMR) is fundamental to evidence-based practice leading to better patient health outcomes. However, there is a decline in the number of health professionals undertaking research which has implications for patient health and the economy. Informed by the motivation-based expectancy-value-cost (EVC) and self determination theories (SDT), this systematic literature review examined the barriers and facilitators of health professionals’ (HPs) motivation to undertake research.

Methods

The literature was searched between 2011 and 2021 for relevant peer-reviewed articles written in English, using CINAHL Complete, Informit, Medline Ovid, Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases. This systematic review was performed and reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.

Results

Identified barriers to HPs’ engagement with research included the lack of knowledge, skills, and competence to conduct research, lack of protected research time, lack of funding and lack of organisational support. Integration of the findings of this review based on the EVC and SDT theories indicate that research capacity, ie, expectancy and competence is highly influenced by attitude, ie, the type of value (attainment, intrinsic or utility) and connection attributed to research. HPs who had very positive attitude towards research demonstrated all three values and were keen to take up research despite the barriers. Those who had a positive attitude were only motivated to do research because of its utility value and did not necessarily see it as having personal relevance for themselves. HPs who were unmotivated did not see any personal connection or relatedness to the research experience and saw no value in research.

Conclusion

The attitude HPs hold in their value of research is a catalyst for motivation or amotivation to engage in research as it directly influences the relevance of barriers. Facilitators that expedite the research journey have been attributed to research training, mentorship programs and supportive organisational research culture. Motivation of HPs explored through EVC and SDT is critical to the maintenance of a research culture and the clinician-researcher development pipeline.

An observational cohort study to determine the impact of research capacity building strategies implemented in an Australian metropolitan hospital occupational therapy department

INTRODUCTION

Research capacity building enhances the abilities of individuals and is critical within health systems for quality patient care and promotes a culture of excellence within the occupational therapy profession. A research capacity building toolkit was proposed identifying strategies to support allied health professionals to undertake research. This study evaluated participant-reported outcomes of research capacity building toolkit implementation in an occupational therapy department.

METHODS

An observational pre-post-cohort study at a tertiary hospital with volunteer occupational therapists using the standardised Research Capacity in Context Tool (RCCT) and an author-designed quality improvement (QI) survey was employed. The RCCT measures research capacity and culture at organisation, team and individual levels. Semi-structured interviews were used to elicit reflections regarding participant experience.

RESULTS

All levels of the toolkit were implemented successfully. The response rate was 59% (n = 36) at baseline and 49.1% (n = 26) at follow-up. Eighty-five percent of participants held direct clinical roles. Nine clinicians participated in the interviews. There were significant improvements in the estimate mean for the organisation (6.51 [2019] compared with 8.13 [2020], p = <0.001) and the team (5.52 [2019] compared with 7.15 [2020], p = 0.001). The individual level did not significantly change with an estimate mean of 4.20 in 2019 increasing slightly to 4.84 in 2020 (p = 0.128). This was supported by the QI survey where improvements were noted in the department but not at an individual level. The qualitative findings verified the components of the toolkit including 'supporting clinicians in research', 'working together', 'valuing research for excellence' and reflected the importance of 'individual attributes'.

CONCLUSION

The toolkit supported the implementation of specific strategies to enhance research capacity and culture. Improvements within the organisation and team were evident; however, these were not seen at an individual level. Further research about the contribution of individual-related factors and processes to the building of research capacity is required.

Supporting Discovery and Inquiry: A Canadian Hospital's Approach to Building Research and Innovation Capacity in Point-of-Care Health Professionals

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Building capacity for research and innovation among point-of-care health professionals can translate into positive outcomes from the organization, staff, and patient perspective. However, there is not a widely accepted framework in place across academic hospitals to guide this work and measure impact. This article outlines one Canadian hospital's approach and provides a blueprint with appropriate indicators as a starting point and guide for organizations looking to develop and implement a practice-based research and innovation strategy.

METHODS

An adapted framework was utilized to measure and track progress toward achievement of research and innovation strategic goals. The framework outlines key domains for research and capacity development and appropriate metrics. Data are reported from a 4-year period (2014-2018).

RESULTS

The evaluation of the practice-based research and innovation portfolio identified several important factors that contribute to the success of embedding this strategy across a large academic teaching institution. These include using a collaborative leadership model, leveraging linkages, partnerships, and collaborations, and recognizing the academic contributions of health professionals engaging in research and innovation.

CONCLUSIONS

Engaging those who provide care directly to patients and families in research and innovation is critical to ensuring high-quality health outcomes and patient experience. Creative and innovative funding models, collaborative leadership, and partnerships with key stakeholders to support research and innovation are needed to ensure sustainability.

Understanding the research capacity and culture of a regional allied health workforce

The aim of this study was to understand the research capacity and culture of a regional allied health workforce over time. A cross-sectional study design was used, with data collected using the validated Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) tool. The results were compared with an earlier administration of the RCC survey. The findings demonstrate that allied health professionals (AHPs) perceive that the organisation's capability of conducting research is at a higher level than that of teams and individuals. Over a 4-year period the profile of the research culture of an allied health workforce in a regional health service was described similarly. The highest rated motivator for conducting research (to develop skills) and barrier to conducting research (other work roles take priority) were unchanged between 2018 and 2014. AHPs have maintained the previous viewpoint that there is research capacity at the health service and opportunities to develop the research culture. The findings of the 2018 data compared with the 2014 data highlight that specific and targeted research capacity-building strategies need to be used in order to create an active and vibrant research culture.

Building Capacity in Health Professionals to Conduct Quality Improvement: Evaluation From a Collaborative Interorganizational Program

BACKGROUND

The Toronto Academic Health Sciences Network Health Professions Innovation Fellowship Program began in 2014 as a pilot initiative among 4 academic teaching hospitals in Toronto, Ontario. The purpose of the Program was to cultivate applied leadership, interprofessional collaboration, and quality improvement capacity among health professionals.

PURPOSE

This article reports on the evaluation findings from the initial year as well as an update on current program status and sustainability.

METHODS

A formative evaluation was conducted focused on the impact on clinical practice, participant skill development, participant experience, and cross-organizational partnerships. Data were collected through a focus group, interviews, and pre- and postsurveys.

RESULTS

Data from the initial pilot showed increases in leadership practices, project management, and quality improvement knowledge, with changes in leadership practices being significant. Positive changes in clinical practice at both the individual and unit/team levels and capacity for building relationships were also reported. Since the pilot, more than 160 participants from 15 health professions and 9 organizations have participated. Several graduates have taken on leadership roles since their participation in the Program.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care organizations wishing to advance academic practice may benefit from implementing a similar collaborative program to reap benefits beyond organizational silos.

Research interest, experience and confidence of allied health professionals working in medical imaging: a cross-sectional survey

INTRODUCTION

There is growing interest in developing research culture and opportunities for allied health professionals working in medical imaging. However, little attention has been given to identifying the research interest and needs of this group relative to the other allied health professions. We aimed to measure self-reported research participation, interest, experience and confidence of allied health professionals working in medical imaging and compare the findings to clinicians working in allied health therapies.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of allied health professionals from medical imaging (radiographers, sonographers and nuclear medicine technologists) was conducted. The primary outcome, the Research Spider survey, measures 10 domains of research interest/experience/confidence on a 5-point Likert scale. Results were compared to allied health therapy data.

RESULTS

Responses were received by 82 medical imaging allied health professionals (65% response rate). Overall, medical imaging professionals rated themselves as having 'some interest' and 'little experience or confidence' in research. There was no difference in interest, experience and confidence among different imaging professions (interest P = 0.099, experience P = 0.380, confidence P = 0.212) or allied health therapists (interest P = 0.137, experience P = 0.363, confidence P = 0.791). Participants reported greatest interest in finding and reviewing literature and lowest interest in applying for funding.

CONCLUSION

There are strong similarities between medical imaging allied health professionals and allied health therapy professionals. Therefore, strategies used to promote research culture in allied health therapy professions could be leveraged to provide opportunities for medical imaging allied health professionals.

We can do it: Improving research culture and capacity in medical radiation sciences

This editorial describes a number of strategies that can be employed to improve research culture and capacity in medical radiation sciences.

Developing a consolidated research framework for clinical allied health professionals practising in the UK

BACKGROUND

Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) form a significant part of the healthcare workforce and have great potential to improve services through research and research-informed practice. However, there is a lack of tradition in research embedded in practice in these professional groups. Barriers include clinical caseload pressures, a lack of sustainable training and consequent lack of confidence in practitioners. Practice managers are ill-equipped to monitor and guide staff research development. The modern healthcare system is a multi-disciplinary environment focused on the needs of the patient. A common framework across all AHP disciplines, offering equality in research knowledge and skills and shared language, might be helpful in planning and developing clinical career pathways. Our aim is to develop a consolidated research framework to help AHPs to plan and guide research activity throughout their career.

METHODS

The study was conducted in three phases. Phase one identified existing AHP research frameworks (AHPRF) through expert consultations and literature searches. Phase two involved framework analysis of the AHPRFs to develop a single consolidated framework. Phase three included a workshop with experts to validate and adapt the framework for practice.

RESULTS

Nineteen AHPRFs were identified. A consolidated framework was shaped by analysis of the AHPRFs resulting in a consolidated framework of eight sections, each containing a series of statements. Each section relates to an analytic theme within the framework analysis, and the statements were based on sub-categories of themes. The final framework was further shaped by the phase three workshop into a set of 'stem' statements that can be adapted to reflect different levels of expertise and the inclusion of a set of guiding principles developed through expert consultation.

CONCLUSION

The consolidated framework was entitled 'Shaping Better Practice Through Research: A Practitioner Framework' by stakeholders, thus emphasising its ambition to embed research activity into practice. It instigates a new perspective within AHP research by offering practitioners and managers a tool that can be applied across public, private, and voluntary settings for AHPs in all disciplines. Its ambition is to develop capacity in the AHPs that can undertake research to improve services and the health of service users.

What influences allied health clinician participation in research in the public hospital setting: a qualitative theory-informed approach

OBJECTIVES

Using theoretical frameworks from implementation science, we aimed to systematically explore the barriers and enablers to research active allied health professionals (AHP) participating and leading research in the hospital setting.

DESIGN

A qualitative interview study informed by behaviour change theory.

SETTING

Single Australian tertiary hospital and health service.

PARTICIPANTS

We recruited a convenience sample of 21 AHPs working within a hospital who were seeking to actively participate in/or lead research within their workplace.

DATA COLLECTION

Semistructured interviews explored perceived barriers and enablers to research participation, informed by the 14 domains of the theoretical domains framework (TDF). Transcribed interviews were deductively coded and mapped to the TDF. A deeper level of inductive coding was used to identify emergent themes that influenced behaviour change, according to the three key constructs of: capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B).

RESULTS

Barriers and enablers to research participation were identified within nine predominant domains of the TDF. Most enablers to engaging in research related to the motivation or opportunity constructs of the COM-B. These enablers included positive beliefs about the consequences of research participation, enabling social influences, peer support and motivation for skill development and to inform practice. Predominant barriers related to environmental context and resources (eg, reduced funding or time), emotional responses of being overwhelmed and perceptions of reduced capability.

CONCLUSION

This study identified key barriers and enablers to behaviour change related to AHPs participating and/or leading research. Motivation and opportunities to participate in research may be enabled by maximising social influence opportunities, reiterating beliefs about positive consequences of research and considering AHP's emotional responses. Implementation science frameworks may provide a more systematic and holistic understanding of factors which influence research participation including enhancing knowledge, motivation and opportunity.

Outcomes of a funding initiative to promote allied health research activity: a qualitative realist evaluation

BACKGROUND

Providing funding for clinicians to have protected time to undertake research can address a commonly cited barrier to research - lack of time. However, limited research has evaluated the impact or mechanisms of such funding initiatives. In the current economic environment, it is important that funding is used efficiently and judiciously and that mechanisms and contexts that may assist with maximising outcomes of funding initiatives are identified. This study aimed to describe the medium-term outcomes of a funding initiative to promote allied health research activity and to identify the key mechanisms and contexts that facilitated these outcomes.

METHODS

We used a qualitative research design informed by a realist evaluation, to conduct 10 semi-structured interviews with allied health professionals who had participated in a funding initiative 1-3 years ago. Questions explored outcomes, mechanisms and contexts of the funding initiative. Data was thematically coded into context-mechanism-outcome configurations.

RESULTS

Medium term outcomes included increased individual research opportunities, influence on team research culture and impact on clinical work/practice. Other outcomes included increased clinician confidence, knowledge and skill, and research outputs. However, some participants still had difficulties progressing research. Four context-mechanism-outcome configurations were identified to explain which contexts and mechanisms produced these outcomes. Examples of contexts included perception of managerial support, undertaking a research-based higher degree and joint applications, while mechanisms included accessing infrastructure and resources as well as individual researcher factors like motivation.

CONCLUSION

Providing funding to allied health professionals to undertake and complete research can lead to important outcomes, including increased research opportunities, capacity and culture, increased research outputs, and changes to clinical practice. Outcomes are influenced by unique contexts and mechanisms and these should be considered in future implementation of similar funding initiatives.

Knowledge Translation in Dietetics: A Survey of Dietitians' Awareness and Confidence

This study aimed to determine dietitians' familiarity with knowledge translation (KT), confidence in undertaking KT, and preferences for receiving KT training. An online questionnaire was designed and disseminated to all dietitians working across hospital and health services in Queensland, Australia, for completion over a 6-week period (April-May 2018). Of the 124 respondents, 69% (n = 85) reported being familiar with KT, but only 28% (n = 35) reported being confident in applying KT to their practice. Higher confidence was reported with problem identification, evidence appraisal, and adapting evidence to local context, compared with implementation, evaluation, and dissemination. Almost all respondents reported an interest in learning more about KT (n = 121, 98%), with a preference for easily accessible and short "snippets" of training aimed at beginner-intermediate level. Lack of management support, difficulty attending multi-day courses, cost, travel requirements, and lack of quarantined time were reported barriers to attending KT training. There is a high awareness and interest but low confidence in undertaking KT amongst dietitians. This highlights an opportunity for workforce development to prepare dietitians to be skilled and confident in KT. Training and support needs to be low-cost and multi-modal to meet diverse needs.

Assessment of Health Research Capacity in Western Sydney Local Health District (WSLHD): A Study on Medical, Nursing and Allied Health Professionals

Background

Research should inform clinical decision-making and evidence-based practice for all health professionals. To build research capacity among all health professionals, there is a need to measure the levels of research capacity and identify the gaps and needs of health-care professionals. The aim of the study was to better understand the research culture and capacity of health professionals (medical, nursing and allied health) in Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.

Methods

A research capacity and culture tool (RCCT) survey was electronically distributed to all health staff in WSLHD. Data were collected between November 2016 and January 2017. Participants were surveyed through a 10-point Likert scale that measured research capacity at the individual, team and organisational levels.

Results

A total of 393 health staff responded to the study: allied health practitioners (46.3%), nursing staff (35.4%) and medical practitioners (18.3%). Females made 76% of the sample, and 54% were aged between 35 and 54 years. Individual responses were different across professions, with an average median score for medical 6.3 (95% CI 5.8-6.9), allied health 5.3 (95% CI 4.9-5.7) and nursing 4.5 (95% CI 4.1-5.0) after adjustment for age and gender. Team responses for medical staff (average median score 5.9 95% CI 5.3-6.4) were higher than allied health (4.1 95% CI 3.7-4.6) and nursing (4.3 95% CI 3.8-4.8), after adjusting for age and gender. However, there were no differences between the three professions for the organisational responses. Allied health and nursing staff were less confident in obtaining research funding, submitting ethics applications, writing for publication and mentoring colleagues about research.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the individual research capacity for medical, allied health and nursing professionals are different. Research capacity building needs to be individually tailored to the specific needs of each profession. This research will inform future capacity building activities and training for health professionals in a large public health organisation of Sydney, Australia.

Who? What? Where? A snapshot of Nuclear Medicine Research Presentations from recent ANZSNM conferences in Australia and New Zealand

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to: 1) discover location (by city) of contributors to poster and oral presentations at recent ANZSNM conferences; 2) determine the nuclear medicine themes most commonly explored; 3) establish institutions producing the highest number of oral and poster abstracts and 4) determine publication rates of conference abstracts to full papers from recent ANZSNM conferences.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of abstracts published in the Internal Medicine Journal Special Issues 2014-2019 identified 614 abstracts. Invited plenary speaker abstracts were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used in data analysis. Conference abstracts were analysed using the following criteria: poster or oral presentation, author/s, city location, hospital and subject matter. Themes defined by the ANZSNM conference committee for abstract submission were: cardiology, oncology, neurology, therapy, renal/urology, gastrointestinal, paediatrics, musculoskeletal, infection/inflammation, technology, physics, radiation safety, radiopharmacy/radiochemistry, education, or general. Retrospective analysis of 555 conference abstracts (excluding New Zealand and International, 59 abstracts) using Google Scholar, Pubmed and Google databases was undertaken. Abstract titles, key words, institutions and/or authors' names were used to find peer-reviewed papers. Identified papers were authenticated through either open access, publicly available author information or Monash University's library access. Published paper citations were also recorded (up to 1st July 2019).

RESULTS

Analysis of 614 abstracts 2014 - 2019 was performed. Over five years, the average number of poster abstracts was 67.8 and oral 55.0. Sydney submitted the highest number of poster abstracts, while Melbourne the highest number of oral abstracts. Most popular abstract theme was oncology for both poster and oral abstracts. Publications found had in excess of 1250 citations.One hundred and one publications from one hundred and seven conference presentations were identified, distributed across sixty journals. Conference presentation to full publication rate was 18.2%; excluding 2019 conference abstracts the rate was 21.5%.

CONCLUSION

Publishing research findings is a challenging process. A retrospective analysis of research presented at recent ANZSNM conferences by abstract content was undertaken, with conference presentation to full publication rate found to be at the lower end of reported literature findings.

A Feasibility Study Of Administering The Electronic Research And Development Culture Index To The Multidisciplinary Workforce In A UK Teaching Hospital

Purpose

The study aims were: (i) to convert the Research and Development Culture Index (a validated rating instrument for assessing the strength of organizational Research and Development culture) into electronic format (eR&DCI), and (ii) to test the format and assess the feasibility of administering it to the multidisciplinary (allied health professionals, doctors and nurses) workforce in a National Health Service Hospital (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK) by trialing it with the workforce of the tertiary Children’s Hospital within the organization.

Population and methods

The eR&DCI was emailed to all professional staff (n=907) in the Children’s Hospital. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22.

Results

The eR&DCI was completed by 155 respondents (doctors n=38 (24.52%), nurses n=79 (50.96%) and allied health professionals (AHPs) n=38 (24.52%)). The response rate varied by professional group: responses were received from 79 out of 700 nurses (11%); 38 out of 132 doctors (29%) and 38 out of 76 AHPs (50%). Index scores demonstrated a positive research culture within the multidisciplinary workforce. Survey responses demonstrated differences between the professions related to research training and engagement in formal research activities.

Conclusion

This is the first study to assess the feasibility of assessing the strength of an organization’s multidisciplinary workforce research and development (R&D) culture by surveying that workforce using the eR&DCI. We converted the index to “Online Surveys” and successfully administered it to the entire multidisciplinary workforce in the Children’s Hospital. We met our criteria for feasibility: ability to administer the survey and a response rate comparable with similar studies. Uptake could have been increased by also offering the option of the paper-based index for self-administration. Results of the survey are informing delivery of the research strategy in the Children’s Hospital. This methodology has potential application in other healthcare contexts.

Proliferation of the WReN spider, an instrument to measure health professionals' experience of research: a bibliographic study

BACKGROUND

In 1997 the "Wessex Research Network (WReN) Spider" was developed and validated to assess the research experience of general practice based researchers. This bibliometric study traces the use and development of this instrument over 15 years.

METHODS

We performed a bibliographic search to identify all the citations of the original article since 2002.

RESULTS

Thirty one relevant papers were found. Publications were classified according to whether they used (N = 18) or cited (N = 13) the WReN Spider. The majority of these papers came from Australia (N = 18) and 10 papers focussed on the research training of Allied Health Professionals. The WReN Spider was used in 12 studies to assess baseline experience before a training intervention or to compare before and after training scores. The WReN Spider was often (N = 9) modified to additionally assess interest, confidence or interest in up-skilling in each of its 10 limbs. It was also often (N = 14) used in tandem with open ended questions to gain a more detailed understanding of people's research skills, or with additional questions focussing on the research context, culture and team. None of the papers confirmed the validation of the WReN Spider, although it was applied in contexts that differed from the one in which it was developed.

CONCLUSIONS

The WReN Spider continues to be used to measure the research experience of health care practitioners, but it is frequently enhanced with other questions to look at the wider issues of research success, including collaborators, resource and environment.

Evaluation of the research capacity and culture of allied health professionals in a large regional public health service

Purpose

The first aim of this study was to evaluate the current research capacity and culture among allied health professionals (AHPs) working in a large regional health service. The second aim of this study was to undertake principal component analyses (PCAs) to determine key components influencing our research capacity and culture.

Patients and methods

As part of a cross-sectional observational study, the Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) tool was administered to AHPs working in Gold Coast Health to measure self-reported research capacity and culture across Organization, Team, and Individual domains, including barriers to and motivators for performing research. An exploratory PCA was performed to identify key components influencing research capacity and culture in each of the three domains, and the results were compared with the findings of a previous study performed in a large metropolitan health district.

Results

This study found moderate levels of research capacity and culture across all domains, with higher scores (median, IQR) reported for the Organization domain (7,5–8) compared to the Team (6,3–8) and Individual domains (5,2–7). Two components were identified in each domain. Components in the Organization domain included “research culture” and “research infrastructure”; components in the Team domain included “valuing and sharing research” and “supporting research”; and components in the Individual domain included “skills for conducting research” and “skills for searching and critiquing the literature”. These components were found to be highly correlated with each other, with correlations between components within each domain ranging from 0.459 to 0.702.

Conclusion

The results of this study reinforce the need for an integrated “whole of system” approach to research capacity building. Ongoing investment in tailored support and infrastructure is required to maintain current areas of strengths and build on identified areas of weakness at the level of organizations, teams, and individual AHPs, and consideration should also be given as to how support across these three levels is integrated.

Uncovering the mechanisms of research capacity development in health and social care: a realist synthesis

BACKGROUND

Research capacity development (RCD) is considered fundamental to closing the evidence-practice gap, thereby contributing to health, wealth and knowledge for practice. Numerous frameworks and models have been proposed for RCD, but there is little evidence of what works for whom and under what circumstances. There is a need to identify mechanisms by which candidate interventions or clusters of interventions might achieve RCD and contribute to societal impact, thereby proving meaningful to stakeholders.

METHODS

A realist synthesis was used to develop programme theories for RCD. Structured database searches were conducted across seven databases to identify papers examining RCD in a health or social care context (1998-2013). In addition, citation searches for 10 key articles (citation pearls) were conducted across Google Scholar and Web of Science. Of 214 included articles, 116 reported on specific interventions or initiatives or their evaluation. The remaining 98 articles were discussion papers or explicitly sought to make a theoretical contribution. A core set of 36 RCD theoretical and conceptual papers were selected and analysed to generate mechanisms that map across macro contexts (individual, team, organisational, network). Data were extracted by means of 'If-Then' statements into an Excel spreadsheet. Models and frameworks were deconstructed into their original elements.

RESULTS

Eight overarching programme theories were identified featuring mechanisms that were triggered across multiple contexts. Three of these fulfilled a symbolic role in signalling the importance of RCD (e.g. positive role models, signal importance, make a difference), whilst the remainder were more functional (e.g. liberate talents, release resource, exceed sum of parts, learning by doing and co-production of knowledge). Outcomes from one mechanism produced changes in context to stimulate mechanisms in other activities. The eight programme theories were validated with findings from 10 systematic reviews (2014-2017).

CONCLUSIONS

This realist synthesis is the starting point for constructing an RCD framework shaped by these programme theories. Future work is required to further test and refine these findings against empirical data from intervention studies.

Research capacity building frameworks for allied health professionals - a systematic review

Background

Building the capacity of allied health professionals to engage in research has been recognised as a priority due to the many benefits it brings for patients, healthcare professionals, healthcare organisations and society more broadly. There is increasing recognition of the need for a coordinated multi-strategy approach to building research capacity. The aim of this systematic review was to identify existing integrated models and frameworks which guide research capacity building for allied health professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary healthcare organisations.

Methods

A systematic review was undertaken searching five databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, AustHealth and Web of Science) using English language restrictions. Two authors independently screened and reviewed studies, extracted data and performed quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Content and thematic analysis methods were used to code and categorise the data.

Results

A total of 8492 unique records were screened by title and abstract, of which 20 were reviewed in full-text. One quantitative study and five qualitative studies were included, each of which describing a research capacity building framework. Three interconnected and interdependent themes were identified as being essential for research capacity building, including ‘supporting clinicians in research’, ‘working together’ and ‘valuing research for excellence’.

Conclusions

The findings of this systematic review have been synthesised to develop a succinct and integrated framework for research capacity building which is relevant for allied health professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary healthcare organisations. This framework provides further evidence to suggest that research capacity building strategies are interlinked and interdependent and should be implemented as part of an integrated ‘whole of system’ approach, with commitment and support from all levels of leadership and management. Future directions for research include using behaviour change and knowledge translation theories to guide the implementation and evaluation of this new framework.

Trial registration

The protocol for this systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO. The registration number is CRD42018087476.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3518-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

What really matters for successful research environments? A realist synthesis

CONTEXT

Research environments, or cultures, are thought to be the most influential predictors of research productivity. Although several narrative and systematic reviews have begun to identify the characteristics of research-favourable environments, these reviews have ignored the contextual complexities and multiplicity of environmental characteristics.

OBJECTIVES

The current synthesis adopts a realist approach to explore what interventions work for whom and under what circumstances.

METHODS

We conducted a realist synthesis of the international literature in medical education, education and medicine from 1992 to 2016, following five stages: (i) clarifying the scope; (ii) searching for evidence; (iii) assessing quality; (iv) extracting data, and (v) synthesising data.

RESULTS

We identified numerous interventions relating to research strategy, people, income, infrastructure and facilities (IIF), and collaboration. These interventions resulted in positive or negative outcomes depending on the context and mechanisms fired. We identified diverse contexts at the individual and institutional levels, but found that disciplinary contexts were less influential. There were a multiplicity of positive and negative mechanisms, along with three cross-cutting mechanisms that regularly intersected: time; identity, and relationships. Outcomes varied widely and included both positive and negative outcomes across subjective (e.g. researcher identity) and objective (e.g. research quantity and quality) domains.

CONCLUSIONS

The interplay among mechanisms and contexts is central to understanding the outcomes of specific interventions, bringing novel insights to the literature. Researchers, research leaders and research organisations should prioritise the protection of time for research, enculturate researcher identities, and develop collaborative relationships to better foster successful research environments. Future research should further explore the interplay among time, identity and relationships.

Not enough time for research? Use of supported funding to promote allied health research activity

Purpose

The current project evaluated the impact of a short-term, supported funding initiative that allowed staff from allied health (AH) professions to undertake research activity within rostered employment time. Specifically, the project will report on outcomes pertaining to individual research capacity, research output, and overall satisfaction with the initiative.

Participants and methods

Sixteen AH clinicians (n=16) from six AH professions participated in the evaluation of the initiative, with data being collected within a service improvement framework. Clinicians received up to 4 weeks of protected time relieved from their clinical duties to undertake research activities, including writing for publication, undertaking a systematic review, data analysis, and preparation of ethics applications. An AH Research Fellow provided additional support and mentorship, including the development of an implementation plan. Evaluation included pre–post measures of individual research capacity using a 15-item self-report Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) survey, a post-implementation satisfaction survey, and monitoring of research output achieved.

Results

Statistically significant improvements (p<0.05) were found on 14 out of 15 items on the RCC tool, with meaningful improvements in securing funding, analyzing qualitative data, writing for publication, literature searching skills, and providing advice to less experienced researchers. Overall satisfaction with the initiative was high, with positive comments from AH professionals (AHPs) regarding the initiative. Research output arising from the initiative included eleven manuscripts being submitted, with six currently in publication and others under review.

Conclusion

The preliminary findings support the feasibility of implementing a local, clinical funding model to promote individual research capacity and research output for AHPs. The short-term funding should be supported by local mentorship and guidance. Local barriers and suggestions to optimize implementation, including integrating within existing research infrastructure and using flexible “backfill” options, will also be described.

Implementation of evidence-based weekend service recommendations for allied health managers: a cluster randomised controlled trial protocol

BACKGROUND

It is widely acknowledged that health policy and practice do not always reflect current research evidence. Whether knowledge transfer from research to practice is more successful when specific implementation approaches are used remains unclear. A model to assist engagement of allied health managers and clinicians with research implementation could involve disseminating evidence-based policy recommendations, along with the use of knowledge brokers. We developed such a model to aid decision-making for the provision of weekend allied health services. This protocol outlines the design and methods for a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the success of research implementation strategies to promote evidence-informed weekend allied health resource allocation decisions, especially in hospital managers.

METHODS

This multi-centre study will be a three-group parallel cluster randomised controlled trial. Allied health managers from Australian and New Zealand hospitals will be randomised to receive either (1) an evidence-based policy recommendation document to guide weekend allied health resource allocation decisions, (2) the same policy recommendation document with support from a knowledge broker to help implement weekend allied health policy recommendations, or (3) a usual practice control group. The primary outcome will be alignment of weekend allied health service provision with policy recommendations. This will be measured by the number of allied health service events (occasions of service) occurring on weekends as a proportion of total allied health service events for the relevant hospital wards at baseline and 12-month follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Evidence-based policy recommendation documents communicate key research findings in an accessible format. This comparatively low-cost research implementation strategy could be combined with using a knowledge broker to work collaboratively with decision-makers to promote knowledge transfer. The results will assist managers to make decisions on resource allocation, based on evidence. More generally, the findings will inform the development of an allied health model for translating research into practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ( ACTRN12618000029291 ). Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1205-2621.

Frameworks for embedding a research culture in allied health practice: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Although allied health clinicians play a key role in the provision of healthcare, embedding a culture of research within public and private health systems remains a challenge. In this rapid review we critically evaluate frameworks for embedding research into routine allied health practice, as the basis for high quality, safe, efficient and consumer-focused care.

METHODS

A rapid review (PROSPERO: CRD42017075699) was conducted to evaluate frameworks designed to create and embed research in the health sector. Included were full-text, English-language, peer-reviewed publications or Government reports of frameworks that could inform the implementation of an allied health research framework. Eight electronic databases and four government websites were searched, using search terms such as models, frameworks and research capacity-building. Two independent researchers conducted all review stages and used content and thematic analysis to interpret the results.

RESULTS

Sixteen framework papers were finally included. Content analysis identified 44 system and regulatory level items that informed the research frameworks, 125 healthcare organisation items and 76 items relating to individual clinicians. Thematic analysis identified four major themes. Firstly, sustainable change requires allied health research policies, regulation, governance and organisational structures that support and value evidence-based practice. Secondly, research capability, receptivity, advocacy and literacy of healthcare leaders and managers are key to successful research implementation. Third, organisational factors that facilitate a research culture include dedicated staff research positions, time allocated to research, mentoring, professional education and research infrastructure. When healthcare agencies had strong partnerships with universities and co-located research leaders, research implementation was strengthened. Finally, individual attributes of clinicians, such as their research skills and capabilities, motivation, and participation in research teams, are essential to embedding research into practice.

CONCLUSION

Theoretical frameworks were identified that informed processes to embed a culture of allied health research into healthcare services. Research-led and evidence-informed allied health practice enables optimisation of workforce capability and high-quality care.

Strategies for research engagement of clinicians in allied health (STRETCH): a mixed methods research protocol

INTRODUCTION

Allied health professionals (AHPs) report positive attitudes to using research evidence in clinical practice, yet often lack time, confidence and skills to use, participate in and conduct research. A range of multifaceted strategies including education, mentoring and guidance have been implemented to increase AHPs' use of and participation in research. Emerging evidence suggests that knowledge brokering activities have the potential to support research engagement, but it is not clear which knowledge brokering strategies are most effective and in what contexts they work best to support and maintain clinicians' research engagement.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol describes an exploratory concurrent mixed methods study that is designed to understand how allied health research fellows use knowledge brokering strategies within tailored evidence-based interventions, to facilitate research engagement by allied health clinicians. Simultaneously, a realist approach will guide a systematic process evaluation of the research fellows' pattern of use of knowledge brokering strategies within each case study to build a programme theory explaining which knowledge brokering strategies work best, in what contexts and why. Learning and behavioural theories will inform this critical explanation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

An explanation of how locally tailored evidence-based interventions improve AHPs use of, participation in and leadership of research projects will be summarised and shared with all participating clinicians and within each case study. It is expected that local recommendations will be developed and shared with medical and nursing professionals in and beyond the health service, to facilitate building research capacity in a systematic and effective way.

Key factors influencing allied health research capacity in a large Australian metropolitan health district

Objective

The aim of this study was to identify key factors affecting research capacity and engagement of allied health professionals working in a large metropolitan health service. Identifying such factors will assist in determining strategies for building research capacity in allied health.

Materials and methods

A total of 276 allied health professionals working within the Sydney Local Health District (SLHD) completed the Research Capacity in Context Tool (RCCT) that measures research capacity and culture across three domains: organization, team, and individual. An exploratory factor analysis was undertaken to identify common themes within each of these domains. Correlations were performed between demographic variables and the identified factors to determine possible relationships.

Results

Research capacity and culture success/skill levels were reported to be higher within the organization and team domains compared to the individual domain (median [interquartile range, IQR] 6 [5–8], 6 [5–8], 5 [3–7], respectively; Friedman χ²(2)=42.04, p<0.001). Exploratory factor analyses were performed to identify factors that were perceived by allied health respondents to affect research capacity. Factors identified within the organization domain were infrastructure for research (eg, funds and equipment) and research culture (eg, senior manager’s support for research); within the team domain the factors were research orientation (eg, dissemination of results at research seminars) and research support (eg, providing staff research training). Within the individual domain, only one factor was identified which was the research skill of the individual (eg, literature evaluation, submitting ethics applications and data analysis, and writing for publication).

Conclusion

The reported skill/success levels in research were lower for the individual domain compared to the organization or team domains. Key factors were identified in each domain that impacted on allied health research capacity. As these factors were different in each domain, various strategies may be required at the level of the organization, team, and individual to support and build allied health research capacity.

Research culture in a regional allied health setting

Research evidence is required to guide best practice, inform policy and improve the health of communities. Current indicators consider allied health research culture to be low. This study aimed to measure the allied health research culture and capacity in a Victorian regional health service. The Research Capacity and Culture tool was used to evaluate research capacity and culture across individual, team and organisation domains. One-way ANOVA was used to determine differences between allied health professions, whereas responses to open-ended questions were themed using open coding. One hundred thirty-six allied health professionals completed the survey. There were statistically significant differences in the organisation domain between social work, physiotherapy and occupational therapy professions; in the team domain, between social work and all other professions. Motivators for conducting research included providing a high-quality service, developing skills and increasing job satisfaction. Barriers included other work roles taking priority, a lack of time and limited research skills. Multi-layered strategies including establishing conjoint research positions are recommended to increase allied health research culture in this regional area.