Enhancing research capacity across healthcare and higher education sectors: development and evaluation of an integrated model

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.

Clinical research imperatives: principles and priorities from the perspective of Allied Health executives and managers

Objective It is widely understood that a key means of improving health systems and patient outcomes is through research - accessing, understanding, generating and applying research evidence-based practice. To promote more targeted and strategic research in Allied Health practice, this study sought to establish the principles, areas and priorities for clinical research as perceived by Allied Health leaders in the South Australian public health system. Methods The study used a mixed-methods design (full, sequential and equal model). Participants were recruited from theSouth Australian Department of Health and Wellbeing employment lists for Allied Health senior leaders. Consenting participants attended face-to-face focus groups; after an overview presentation, they discussed the principles for Allied Health research, followed by areas and priorities for research. Summaries of the responses were themed descriptively and circulated electronically so participants could confirm the research areas and ascribe priority ratings, clinical populations and services. Results A total of 28 people attended the stakeholder forum (5 online); 20 responded to the second-round electronic summary. Nine principles of research action were agreed. Fourteen research areas were identified and prioritised. There was a relatively consistent prioritisation of measuring Allied Health value, Allied Health workforce, hospital avoidance and closing the gap for Aboriginal health outcomes - whether the individuals were thinking about their own service or the state as a whole. Conclusions Allied Health leadership identified key principles and priorities for research to improve service delivery and patient outcomes. These priorities should generate further discussion and interest for novice and experienced researchers and leaders and can be used to inform granting and project plans.

Partnership-building considerations for implementation science in learning health systems: a case study of the Implementation Science Collaborative in Alberta, Canada

Introduction

Implementation of health innovations is inherently collaborative, requiring trans-sectoral partnerships between implementation researchers, innovation teams, and implementation practitioners. Implementation science has been shown to improve implementation successes; however, challenges that hinder partnerships to advance implementation science continue to persist. Using a whole-system approach to assess and respond to implementation science partnership barriers may shed light on effective responses.

Methods

We conducted a case study of Alberta's learning health system, using semi-structured group and individual interviews to create a nuanced understanding of the considerations required for implementation research collaborations. We interviewed 53 participants representing 21 offices in the health system, academia, professional associations, and government who regularly plan, evaluate, and/or study health system implementation initiatives in Alberta. Using the Partnership Model for Research Capacity Building, we identified current facilitators and challenges for partnerships for conducting and using implementation science, at different levels of Alberta's health-research ecosystem.

Results

Alberta's healthcare system is well set up to readily embed intervention effectiveness and efficacy research. Infrastructure was also in place to strengthen implementation practice. However, weaknesses around exchanging knowledge and skills, providing feedback and mentoring, and accommodating diversity affected the ability of both individuals and teams to build implementation science capacity. Without this capacity, teams could not participate in embedded implementation research collaborations. We report the response of the Alberta Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research SUPPORT Unit to these barriers to provide practical guidance on various program options to strengthen individual- and organization-level implementation science capacity.

Discussion

This study applied a whole-system approach to assess factors across Alberta's health-research ecosystem, which affect partnerships to advance implementation science. Our findings illustrated that partnership considerations go beyond interpersonal factors and include system-wide considerations. With the results, health organization leaders have (1) a method for assessing organizational capability to readily embed implementation research and (2) a catalog of potential responses to create conditions to readily engage with implementation science in their day-to-day implementation processes.

Developing a framework to guide the evaluation of training in research skills for health and care professionals

Background

Delivering research skills training to health professionals through short, applied sessions outside a formal higher education program, can help fill gaps in training and build research capacity in clinical settings. This has been the endeavor of some of the Applied Research Collaborations funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research in England since 2014. How to evaluate this type of training in terms of the wider impact it may have, has not featured heavily in the literature and methods have largely borrowed from more generic approaches to training evaluation which can over-simplify outcomes and ignore longer-term impacts.

Methods

We developed the framework in four stages: mapping potential impacts of our research skills training courses to identify key concepts; shaping into three domains in which impact could be expected, informed by established definitions of research capacity building; testing the initial framework and adapting wording of impacts; refining the framework into a practical tool.

Results

The final framework specifies types of impact in three domains of influence - individual, group/organization and health system, and maps these against key questions to guide inquiry, as well as suggested methods for capturing the impact and expected timeframe for each type of impact.

Discussion

The framework provides a structure for guiding the evaluation of research training as well as a focus on medium-longer term impacts, encouraging a broader and continuous approach to evaluation. It is hoped this will support educators in other contexts and fields, in the planning of a wider range of training evaluation activities, to capture impact more fully.

A framework for sustainable capacity-building for collaborative North-South translational health research and training in a resource-constrained setting

INTRODUCTION

Success with highly active antiretroviral therapy (ART) for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in developing countries has been attributed to collaborative North-South resource-sharing and capacity-building. Academic research and training programmes have contributed towards policy entrepreneurship in a manner that influenced capacity-building within health systems. However, the documented capacity-building frameworks rarely elucidate how such programmes can be designed and implemented efficiently and sustainably.

METHOD

We implemented the University of Zimbabwe (UZ)-State University of New York at Buffalo (UB) collaborative HIV clinical pharmacology capacity-building programme in Zimbabwe in 1998. We intuitively operationalized the programme around a mnemonic acronym, "RSTUVW", which spells out a supportive framework consisting of "room (space), skills, tools (equipment)", underpinned by a set of core values, "understanding, voice (clout) and will". Subsequent to our two decades of successful collaborative experience, we tested the general validity and applicability of the framework within a prospective programme aimed at expanding the role of health professionals.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Based on this collaborative North-South research and training capacity-building programme which has been positively validated in Zimbabwe, we propose this novel mnemonic acronym-based framework as an extra tool to guide sustainable capacity-building through collaborative North-South implementation research. Its extended use could also include assessment and evaluation of health systems within resource-constrained settings.

The research interest, capacity and culture of NHS staff in South East Scotland and changes in attitude to research following the pandemic: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

The UK National Health Service (NHS) is ideally placed to undertake research. The UK Government recently launched its vision of research within the NHS to improve research culture and activity amongst its staff. Currently, little is known about the research interest, capacity and culture of staff in one Health Board in South East Scotland and how their attitudes to research may have changed as a result of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

METHODS

We used the validated Research Capacity and Culture tool in an online survey of staff working in one Health Board in South East Scotland to explore attitudes to research at the organisation, team and individual level together with involvement in, barriers to and motivators to engage in research. Questions included changes in attitude to research as a result of the pandemic. Staff were identified by professional group: nurses/midwives, medical/dental, allied health professionals (AHP), other therapeutic and administrative roles. Median scores and interquartile ranges were reported and differences between groups assessed using the Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests with P < 0.05 accepted as statistical significance. Free-text entries were analysed using content analysis.

RESULTS

Replies were received from 503/9145 potential respondents (5.5% response), of these 278 (3.0% response) completed all sections of the questionnaire. Differences between groups were noted in the proportions of those with research as part of their role (P = 0.012) and in being research-active (P < 0.001). Respondents reported high scores for promoting evidence-based practice and for finding and critically reviewing literature. Low scores were returned for preparing reports and securing grants. Overall, medical and other therapeutic staff reported higher levels of practical skills compared with other groups. Principal barriers to research were pressure of clinical work and lack of time, backfill and funds. 171/503 (34%) had changed their attitude to research as a result of the pandemic with 92% of 205 respondents more likely to volunteer for a study themselves.

CONCLUSION

We found a positive change in attitude to research arising from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Research engagement may increase after addressing the barriers cited. The present results provide a baseline against which future initiatives introduced to increase research capability and capacity may be assessed.

Exploring research capacity and culture of allied health professionals: a mixed methods evaluation

Background

Despite the myriad benefits of research to patients, professionals, and organisations, fewer than 0.1% of the Allied Health Professions workforce are employed in clinical academic roles. Identified barriers include a lack of role modelling, management support, funding, and availability of clinical academic roles. Research capacity building is critical to improving Allied Health Professional research capability. The aim of this evaluation was to explore the current research capacity and culture of Allied Health Professionals to inform future tailored research capacity building strategies at a local level.

Methods

A mixed methods evaluation of research capacity and culture was conducted within the Allied Health Professions department of a large National Health Service Foundation Trust using an online research capacity and culture questionnaire, followed by focus groups. Staff were recruited using a purposive method with the questionnaire and subsequent focus groups completed between July and September 2020. Data from the questionnaire was analysed using simple descriptive statistics and after inductive coding, focus group data was analysed thematically.

Results

93 out of 278 staff completed the questionnaire and 60 staff members attended seven focus groups. The research capacity and culture survey reported the department’s key strength as promoting clinical practice based on evidence (median=8, range=6-9). A key reported weakness of the department was insufficient resources to support staff research training (med=4, 3-6). Respondents considered themselves most skilled in finding relevant literature (med=6, 5-8) and least skilled at securing research funding (med=1, 1-2). Greater than half of the respondents (n=50) reported not currently being involved with research. Five themes were identified from the focus groups: empowerment; building research infrastructure; fostering research skills; access for all; and positive research culture.

Conclusions

Allied Health Professionals recognise the benefits of research at teams and departmental level, but marginally at an individual level. Local research capacity building strategies should aim to address the role, responsibilities and barriers to Allied Health Profession research development at an individual level. To ensure all staff can engage, research infrastructure and empowerment are essential.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07480-x.

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.

Effectiveness of an Academic-Practice Team Approach on Research Capacity Building of Nurses and Public Health Professionals

The purpose of this study was to determine the need for research training among nurses and health professionals in a rural province of Thailand and to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions designed to address the identified factors. This two-phase study used a cross-sectional design with one-group pre- and post-tests. In phase I, 149 subjects from 16 subdistrict health promoting hospitals and one district hospital were sampled. As an intervention, an academic-practice team approach to research capacity building was designed. Twenty-four volunteers completed a three-time point assessment of intervention in phase II. Data were collected using self-report questionnaires and analyzed using bivariate and multivariate statistics. Phase-I results indicated that 33.6% of subjects were involved in the research implementation. They had a moderate perception of research barriers and capacity. The research experiences, capacity, and barriers associated with the research implementation were described in detail (p < 0.05). The only positive predictor of research implementation was research training (p < 0.001). The intervention improved 24 participants’ competency (p < 0.05). Most of their research proposals had received ethics approval and a small grant. These findings highlight the efforts of innovative research capacity development and its impact on research and health practices among nurses and health professionals.

Enablers and barriers to progressing a clinical academic career in nursing, midwifery and allied health professions: A cross-sectional survey

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to understand the routes by which nurses, midwives and allied health professionals (NMAHPs) pursue and sustain a research career and the enablers and barriers to career progression.

BACKGROUND

Robust evidence is central to practice and professional decision making of NMAHPs, with generation and translation of research arguably best led by those clinically active. Whilst countries like the UK and USA have fellowship schemes to support research career development, anecdotal reports suggest barriers exist in translating these opportunities into sustainable clinical academic careers.

DESIGN

Online survey.

METHODS

An online questionnaire addressing career choices, facilitators/barriers and support was emailed to 1074 past applicants (doctoral and post-doctoral) to National Institute of Health Research fellowship schemes (awarded and rejected) in England between March and May 2017; 231 responded (25.6%). Study reporting adheres to STROBE checklist.

RESULTS

Overall, 134 doctoral and 96 post-doctoral applicants participated; two-thirds were from allied health professions. Most were early in their research career. Interest in research was most frequently sparked by interaction with people in research positions. Nearly half had their first research experience during their BSc project; though less often for nurses/midwives/health visitors (37.5%) than other NMAHPs (51.6%). The award of a fellowship resulted in higher likelihood of being research-active (doctoral level). Nearly three quarters pursuing a clinical academic career indicated 'clearer career paths' and 'greater integration across clinical and academic departments' were desirable. Most common barriers related to research roles, availability of positions and funding.

CONCLUSIONS

Fellowship schemes are important to NMAHPs' research careers, but there are serious challenges to establishing and sustaining a career.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Lack of a clear model of career progression, at national and local level, and barriers to creating joint posts impacts on capacity of clinical academics to strengthen integration of research with practice.

Health research capacity of professional and technical personnel in a first-class tertiary hospital in northwest China: multilevel repeated measurement, 2013-2017, a pilot study

Objectives

To explore the health research capacity (HRC) and factors associated with professional and technical personnel (PTP) in a first-class tertiary hospital in northwest China.

Methods

We collected the repeated measurement data from a first-class tertiary hospital in northwest China between 2013 and 2017. HRC of PTP was assessed by a comprehensive evaluation system and measured by research capacity score (RCS). The participants were divided into research group (RCS >0) and comparison group (RCS = 0); participants of the comparison group were selected by two-stage stratified random sampling. Multilevel model for repeated measures was used to investigate the potential factors associated with HRC.

Results

A total of 924 PTP were included (308 in the research group and 616 in the comparison group). This study found consistent growth in RCS and associated 95% CIs for the hospital during 2013 and 2017. The linear multilevel model showed PTP with a doctorate degree had higher RCS than those with a master’s degree (β, 1.74; P <0.001), bachelor’s degree (β, 2.02; P <0.001) and others without a degree (β, 2.32; P <0.001). Furthermore, the PTP with intermediate (β, 0.13; P = 0.015), vice-high (β, 0.27; P = 0.001) and senior (β, 0.63; P <0.001) professional titles had higher RCS than those with junior positions. Compared with PTP in the administration, those in paediatrics had higher RCS (β, 0.28; P = 0.047) though similar to PTP in other departments. PTP with an administrative position had a higher RCS than those in non-administrative positions (β, 0.26; P <0.001). The RCS increased with the research fund (β, 0.15; P <0.001). However, no associations were found between RCS and sex, age, ethnic, graduate school or technical type.

Conclusions

HRC with associated variation of PTP for the hospital in northwest China increasingly improved and degree, professional title, administrative position, and research fund were related to HRC of PTP. Multi-central prospective studies are needed to clarify the potential relationship of related factors and HRC of PTP.

Use of bibliometric analysis of Greek hospital personnel publications

In this paper, Stamatoula Pylarinou with her supervisor Prof. Sarantos Kapidakis reports on an analysis of bibliographic data of the publications of Greek hospital personnel, conducted as part of Stamatoula's doctoral research in the Department of Archive, Library and Museum Sciences at the Ionian University in Corfu, Greece. Using freely available data, they demonstrate the questions posed and the insights gained from the analysis of the scientific publications of personnel of public hospitals in Greece, in particular amid the years of austerity in Greece. With regard to impact on practice, they suggest that these procedures for the processing of medline/PubMed bibliographic data can improve communication among hospital librarians and administration or patients, adding value to their duties and enhancing the information and services they can provide. F.J.

An academic perspective of participation in healthcare redesign

Healthcare redesign, based on building collaborative capacity between academic and clinical partners, should create a method to facilitate flow between the key elements of health service improvement. However, utilising the skills and resources of an organisation outside of the health facility may not always have the desired effect. Accountability and mutually respectful relationships are fundamental for collaborative, sustainable and successful completion of clinical research projects. This paper provides an academic perspective of both the benefits of academic involvement in facilitating healthcare redesign processes as well as the potential pitfalls of involving external partner institutions in internal healthcare redesign projects.

Developing a practice-based research agenda for grief and bereavement care

We aimed to identify practitioners' perspectives on current research priorities in grief and bereavement care. Grief and bereavement care providers were invited to participate in a three-phase Delphi study to create expert consensus on the top priorities for grief and bereavement research. A total of 140 participants completed Phase 1, 84 completed Phase 2, and 70 completed Phase 3. These top 10 research priorities form the basis of a practice-based research agenda for grief and bereavement care to enable researchers to respond to key issues in grief and bereavement care that will ultimately improve the lives of bereaved people.

An analysis of bibliometric data exploring factors affecting research capacity amongst HCPC registered radiographers in England

INTRODUCTION

Pre-existing studies argue, radiographers are "apathetic" when it comes to research. However, labelling everyone as such seems a gross simplification of a multifaceted issue; especially as current evidence tends to err towards the anecdotal, subjective or is compared to similar professions. Considering this, the SCoR periodically issues a Research Strategy, recognising the necessity to embed/improve research-capacity across all levels of the profession. The aim of this study is to ascertain factors characteristically influencing research-capacity amongst HCPC-registered radiographers in England.

METHODS

A purposeful sample of 5 years' bibliometric data from the journal 'Radiography.' A critical and thematic analysis followed based on current peer reviewed journals and grey literature.

RESULTS

Of 374 eligible articles and 143 research-active authors (published 2 + articles), collaborations prominently featured (74.9%) across 19 international partnerships. HCPC registrants in England were principal investigator(s) in 49.20% of cases and registrants affiliated with the journal/publisher generally published more than non-affiliates. Preferred topic-areas included 'Education & Research' and 'Technical Practice.' Males published more than females (M = 5.13/F = 3.45). Average length of practice equalled 22.93 years. Outputs mostly originated from HEIs (62.07%), but contributions varied (mean = 10.05/std.deviation = ±17.09); modestly correlating high-REF scoring HEIs (r = 0.330); however, regional workforce ratio(s) proved the strongest indicator (r = 0.601).

CONCLUSION

No "one-size-fits all" approach to research-capacity applies; multiple variables affect capacity/activeness. Many seem contingent on extrinsic factors e.g. regional locale, organisational type and culture/support. Personal/professional influences included career status, length of qualification and gender. Future strategies may benefit from refinement; mindful of the dynamics influencing the heterogeneity of the current workforce. Recommendations are that future strategies/studies may benefit from more specific targeting.

Longitudinal evaluation of a knowledge translation role in occupational therapy

BACKGROUND

In 2014, a large metropolitan mental health service in Australia developed a senior role (Lead Research Occupational Therapist) to address an identified need for greater research and knowledge translation, and associated capacity building. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact, in the first 2.5 years, of this role across a range of variables.

METHODS

Multiple methods were used to gather a comprehensive range of data. Workforce surveys were completed both online and in hard copy in early 2014 (n = 42) and late 2016 (n = 44). Research key performance indicators (academic, research production and cultural) were also identified for measurement over time. The data from these surveys were analysed using descriptive and inductive analysis, and also with social network analysis.

RESULTS

This role has demonstrated positive outcomes across a range of variables. There was a medium effect on the quantity of participation in quality assurance and knowledge translation activities by the workforce. Most knowledge translation behaviours were occurring regularly, although several were absent. An improving trend in attitudes towards evidence-based practice was recorded, and perceptions of the knowledge translation role were generally positive. The Lead Research Occupational Therapist moved from the periphery to the centre of the evidence based practice social network. Improved awareness of other clinicians deploying evidence based practice was observed, and the frequency of interaction between clinicians increased. The role has met all key performance indicators, across the academic, research production and cultural domains.

CONCLUSIONS

The shift in focus of this role from research to knowledge translation has produced tangible outcomes for the occupational therapy workforce. These achievements have had a positive impact on the sustainability of the role, which will be continued for at least another two years. An ongoing challenge is to directly measure the impact of this role on outcomes for people with mental illness and their carers.

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.

Preregistration research training of speech and language therapists in the United Kingdom: a nationwide audit of quantity, content and delivery

AIM

To carry out an audit of the quantity and content of research teaching on UK preregistration speech and language therapy (SLT) degree programmes.

METHOD

Lecturers delivering research teaching from each higher education institution providing preregistration training were invited to complete an online survey.

QUESTIONS INCLUDED

Amount of research teaching, content of research teaching (including final-year projects), perceived confidence by staff of graduates in research awareness, research activity and leading research. Responses were received for 14 programmes (10 undergraduate and four postgraduate), representing 73% of all undergraduate courses and 44% of all postgraduate courses in the United Kingdom.

RESULTS

Fifty percent of courses included over 30 h of research teaching, with wide variability across both undergraduate and postgraduate courses in number of hours, modules and credits devoted to research. There was no association between quantity of research teaching and perception of adequacy of quantity of teaching. Critical appraisal, statistical software and finding literature were the most common topics taught. Conversely, service evaluation and audit was the least common topic covered. All institutions provided a final-year project, with 11/14 requiring empirical research. Perceived confidence of graduates was higher for research awareness than active research and leading research, but this varied across institutions. There was a strong correlation between lecturers' perceived confidence of graduates in research awareness and number of hours of research teaching.

CONCLUSION

Despite the requirements for healthcare professionals to engage in evidence-based practice, the amount and nature of research training in preregistration courses for SLTs in the United Kingdom is highly variable. Levels of perceived confidence of graduates were also variable, not only for active participation in research, and for leading research, but also for research awareness. This has implications for the ability of SLTs to use and embed research in their routine clinical practice.

How do NHS organisations plan research capacity development? Strategies, strengths, and opportunities for improvement

Research that is integral into a 'learning healthcare system' can promote cost effective services and knowledge creation. As such, research is defined as a 'core function' in UK health service organisations, and is often planned through research and development (R&D) strategies that aim to promote research activity and research capacity development (RCD). The discussion focuses around the content of ten R&D strategies for healthcare organisations in England and Scotland, with respect to RCD. These organisations were engaged with a research interest network called ACORN (Addressing Organisational Capacity to do Research Network) that included two Scottish Health Boards, four community and mental health trusts, two provincial district hospitals, and two teaching hospitals. We undertook a thematic documentary analysis of the R&D strategies which identified 11 'core activities' of RCD. The potential for building research capacity in these 'core activities' was established by reviewing them through the lens of a RCD framework. Core activities aimed to 'hard wire' RCD into health organisations. They demonstrated a complex interplay between developing a strong internal organisational infrastructure, and supporting individual career planning and skills development, in turn enabled by organisational processes. They also included activities to build stronger inter-organisational relationships and networks. Practitioner, manager and patient involvement was a cross cutting theme. The potential to demonstrate progress was included in plans through monitoring activity across all RCD principles. Strategies were primarily aimed at research production rather than research use. Developing 'actionable dissemination' was poorly addressed in the strategies, and represents an area for improvement. We describe strengths of RCD planning activities, and opportunities for improvement. We explore how national policy and research funders can influence health systems' engagement in research.

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.

Bioethics training programmes for Africa: evaluating professional and bioethics-related achievements of African trainees after a decade of Fogarty NIH investment

OBJECTIVES

Our primary aim was to evaluate the impact of US National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded bioethics training programmes (Fogarty bioethics training programmes, FBTPs) that trained individuals from Africa over the programme's first 10 years to examine changes between pretraining and post-training in individual achievement and to document any associations between individual, training programme and post-training accomplishments.

DESIGN

We surveyed trainees from the 10 bioethics programmes funded by NIH Fogarty International Center from 2000 to 2011 that included African trainees. McNemar's and Wilcoxon signed rank-sum tests were used to analyse pre-post levels of general and bioethics-related professional achievement. Likelihood of specific post-training achievement outcomes was measured using logistic regression including demographic, pretraining and intratraining variables.

SETTING

10 different FBTPs that trained individuals from Africa from 2000 to 2011.

PARTICIPANTS

Of 253 eligible respondents, 171 completed the survey (response rate 67.6%).

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Pre-post comparisons of professional achievement indicators (eg, serving in leadership roles, teaching, publishing manuscripts); likelihood of specific post-training achievement outcomes.

RESULTS

Post-training, respondents were significantly more likely to report serving in a leadership role, being an investigator on a research grant, serving on international committees, serving as a mentor, and publishing manuscripts than at pretraining. Post-training, significantly greater numbers of respondents reported bioethics-related achievements including being a bioethics instructor, serving on an Institutional Review Board (IRB), being an investigator on a bioethics grant and publishing bioethics-related manuscripts than pretraining. Controlling for other factors, there were no significant differences by gender in the post-training success of these participants in terms of leadership roles, being instructors, investigators on grants and holding IRB roles.

CONCLUSIONS

African trainees who participated in FBTPs reported significantly higher levels of professional achievement after training. There was no single factor-either demographic, related to a trainee's professional background, or in programme design-that consistently predicted greater levels of post-training achievement.

The role and impact of research positions within health care settings in allied health: a systematic review

Background

Embedding dedicated research positions within healthcare settings is a potential strategy to build allied health research capacity, with different health care organisations investing in such positions. The aim of this review was to gather evidence regarding the nature of the role of the research position in allied health professional (AHP) healthcare settings and the impact that these positions have on building research capacity.

Methods

A systematic review was undertaken searching eight databases (Medline CINAHL, Cochrane, OTSeeker, Speechbite, PEDro, Web of Science, and Proquest) using English language restrictions. Both authors independently screened abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data and performed quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Studies were included that reported the evaluation and/or components of the role of a dedicated research position with AHPs in any healthcare setting. A thematic analysis approach was used to synthesise findings.

Results

A total of 360 abstracts were initially screened, with 58 full text articles being reviewed. Eight unique studies were included in the thematic analysis clarifying either the nature of role of the research position (n = 7) or impact of the position (n = 4). Studies included mixed methods (n = 3), descriptive case study (n = 4), and observational (n = 1) designs. The majority of studies reported the research positions to provide academic support to individual clinicians and their teams, while developing their own research projects. Other studies reported support for research capacity building at a service and organisational level. Positive changes from these research positions was reported via increased individual research skills and participation and research outputs, improvements in research culture, attitudes and team and organisational level skills.

Conclusion

Emerging evidence suggests that research positions embedded within healthcare settings can influence individual and team based research skills and research participation of AHPs. Future research is needed to further investigate the sustainability of changes arisen from research positions and what mechanisms of the positions have the greatest impact. Healthcare managers should consider how to support potential components of the research position roles identified in the literature, as well consider evaluating their impact on research capacity, cultural and attitudinal changes of AHP staff in addition to traditional research metrics.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1606-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Research capacity and culture of the Victorian public health allied health workforce is influenced by key research support staff and location

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to identify and understand the self-rated research capacity and culture of the allied health workforce. METHODS. The present study was a cross-sectional survey. The Research Capacity and Culture tool was disseminated to all Victorian public health allied health departments. General demographic data were also collected, including the presence of an organisational allied health research lead.

RESULTS

Five hundred and twenty fully completed surveys were returned by participants; all allied health disciplines and all grades were represented. One hundred and eighty-six participants had an organisational allied health research lead and 432 were located in a metropolitan-based health service. There were significant differences (P < 0.05) within all organisational and team research skills between those with and without a research lead, together with those in different service locations (metropolitan vs non-metropolitan). Higher self-ratings in individual research skills (P < 0.05) were primarily associated with more senior and metropolitan-located clinicians.

CONCLUSION

The allied health workforce identifies as a group that is ready to build the evidence to support clinical practice yet requires a whole-systems approach to do so. The results of the present study suggest that the development of key people to build capacity at a higher organisational level has a flow-down effect on research capacity and culture.

A method for measuring individual research productivity in hospitals: development and feasibility

BACKGROUND

Research capacity is a prerequisite for any health care institution intending to provide high-quality care, yet, few clinicians engage in research, and their work is rarely recognized. To make research an institutional activity, it could be helpful to measure health care professionals' research performance. However, a comprehensive approach to do this is lacking.

METHODS

We conducted a literature analysis to determine how best to assess research performance. Our method was not restricted to bibliometric and citation parameters, as is usually the case, but also including "hidden" activities, generally not considered in research performance evaluations.

RESULTS

A set of 12 easily retrievable indicators was used and corresponding points assigned according to a weighting system intended to reflect the effort estimated to perform each activity. We observed a highly skewed score distribution, with a minority of health care professionals performing well across the indicators. The highest score was recorded for scientific papers (768/1098 points, 70%). Twenty percent of researchers at our institution generated 50% of points.

CONCLUSIONS

We develop a simple method for measuring research performance, which could be rapidly implemented in health care institutions. It is hoped that the proposed method might be useful for promoting research and guiding resource allocation, although further evaluations are needed to confirm the method's utility.

Mentoring Hispanic undergraduate and graduate research assistants: building research capacity in nursing

BACKGROUND

This article discusses and describes the experiences of five Hispanic bilingual (English and Spanish) research assistants (RAs) who were undergraduate and graduate nursing students and who were part of a research team.

METHOD

A capacity-building framework was used, which has six guiding principles: a whole-system approach; accommodating diversity; reducing barriers to participation; enabling collaboration; mentoring; and facilitating networking. In addition, mentorship and peer learning were essential components of building research capacity.

RESULTS

Reflections of the five RAs highlighting how these principles were applied are described. The experiences of the five Hispanic RAs and the outcomes of the projects are also described.

CONCLUSION

These experiences demonstrate the importance of involving undergraduate and graduate nursing students in research, which can build research capacity and increase the number of Hispanic nurses in the workforce.

Evaluating international research ethics capacity development: an empirical approach

The US national institutes of health, Fogarty International Center (NIH-FIC) has, for the past 13 years, been a leading funder of international research ethics education for resource-limited settings. Nearly half of the NIH-FIC funding in this area has gone to training programs that train individuals from sub-Saharan Africa. Identifying the impact of training investments, as well as the potential predictors of post-training success, can support curricular decisionmaking, help establish funding priorities, and recognize the ultimate outcomes of trainees and training programs. Comprehensive evaluation frameworks and targeted evaluation tools for bioethics training programs generally, and for international research ethics programs in particular, are largely absent from published literature. This paper shares an original conceptual framework, data collection tool, and detailed methods for evaluating the inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes of research ethics training programs serving individuals in resource-limited settings. This paper is part of a collection of papers analyzing the Fogarty International Center's International Research Ethics Education and Curriculum Development program.