Embedded researchers in Australia: Survey of profile and experience across medical, nursing and midwifery and allied health disciplines

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 Health Professionals Working with Women, Children and Families at an Australian Public Hospital: A Cross Sectional Observational Study

Background

There is limited evidence for use of the Research Capacity and Culture tool across multidisciplinary health professionals. We explored using the Research Capacity and Culture tool among multidisciplinary health professionals at an Australian secondary hospital.

Methods

A cross-sectional observational study where online and paper-based surveys of the Research Capacity and Culture tool were disseminated between November 2020 and January 2021. Descriptive analyses of demographic variables and Likert scale items were summarized using median and inter-quartile ranges. Differences between organization, team and individual domains were checked using a Friedman test. Post-hoc Wilcoxon signed rank tests determined specific differences between domains.

Results

Seventy-six multidisciplinary health professionals (female, 89.3%) reported overall perceptions of research success/skills highest in the organization (median 6), followed by the team (median 5) and individual domains (median 3.5). Only 21.3% agreed that research activities were a part of their role description. Mean scores across professions were highest for Medicine (5.47), Midwifery (4.52), Nursing (4.47) and Allied Health (3.56), respectively, for the team domain. Individual domain scores across all professions were below 50%. Commonly reported barriers to research were “lack of time for research,” “other work roles taking priority” and “a lack of skill.” “Developing skills” was the most common personal motivator.

Conclusion

Multidisciplinary health professionals reported the highest overall perception of research success/skills in the organization domain. Medical health professionals perceived research success/skills highest compared to nursing, midwifery and allied health professionals.