A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis exploring the impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine

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.

Establishing a research partnership to investigate functional loss and rehabilitation towards the end of life

Background

Functional loss, the inability to perform necessary or desired tasks, is a common consequence of life-limiting illnesses and associated symptoms (pain, fatigue, breathlessness, etc.) and causes suffering for patients and families. Rehabilitation, a set of interventions designed to address functional loss, is recognised as essential within palliative care, as it can improve quality of life and reduce care costs. However, not everyone has equal access to rehabilitation. Despite limited life expectancy or uncertain ability to benefit from interventions, palliative rehabilitation services are often absent. This is partly due to a lack of high-quality research around optimal models of rehabilitation. Research in this area is methodologically challenging and requires multidisciplinary and cross-speciality collaboration.

Aim and objectives

We aimed to establish and grow a United Kingdom research partnership across diverse areas, commencing with partners from Edinburgh, East Anglia, Lancashire, Leeds, London and Nottingham, around the topic area of functional loss and rehabilitation in palliative and end-of-life care. The objectives were to (1) develop a multidisciplinary, cross-speciality research partnership, (2) generate high-priority unanswered research questions with stakeholders, (3) co-design and submit high-quality competitive research proposals, including (4) sharing topic and methodological expertise, and (5) to build capacity and capability to deliver nationally generalisable studies.

Activities

The partnership was established with professionals from across England and Scotland with complementary areas of expertise including complex palliative and geriatric research, physiotherapy, nursing, palliative medicine and psychology. Research questions were generated through a modified version of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative, which allowed for the collation and refinement of research questions relating to functional loss and rehabilitation towards the end of life. Partnership members were supported through a series of workshops to transform research ideas into proposals for submission to stage one calls by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. The partnership not only supported students, clinicians and public members with training opportunities but also supported clinicians in securing protected time from clinical duties to allow them to focus on developing local research initiatives.

Reflections

Through our partnership we established a network that offered researchers, clinicians, students and public members the chance to develop novel skills and explore opportunities for personal and professional development around the topic area of functional loss and rehabilitation in palliative and end-of-life care. The partnership was crucial to foster collaboration and facilitate exchange of ideas, knowledge and experiences to build joint research study proposals.

Funding

This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) programme as award number NIHR135171. A plain language summary of this article is available on the NIHR Journals Library website https://doi.org/10.3310/PTHC7598.

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.

A survey of research involvement and priorities among occupational therapists in Norway

BACKGROUND

Involvement in research and shared priorities among occupational therapists (OTs) can enhance the quality of occupational therapy practice.

AIMS

To explore the research involvement and research priorities of OTs in Norway.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online survey comprising 14 open-ended and closed questions was made available to participants at the Seventh Norwegian Congress in Occupational Therapy to fill out.

RESULTS

Out of 633 congress participants, 307 (49%) OTs completed the survey. Among the respondents, ∼40% were involved in research. The most commonly reported area of research was rehabilitation. Research involvement was associated with employment in education or specialist healthcare services and with greater work experience and post-bachelor's degree education. The most frequently prioritized research question addressed the effect of occupational therapy. Unmet needs and factors conducive to increasing OT's involvement in research were identified.

CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE

The survey revealed that a considerable, but uneven, distribution of OTs were involved in research. To encourage greater participation in research, researchers, decision-makers, and employee associations should take steps to make research more appealing to OTs. The research priorities highlighted by Norwegian OTs align with those stated by OTs in other countries.

Mental Health Nurses' and Allied Health Professionals' Individual Research Capacity and Organizational Research Culture: A Comparative Study

Introduction

Healthcare professionals have development needs related to their consumption, use, and practice of clinical research. Little is known about these issues in mental health services specifically.

Objectives

A survey of healthcare staff working in an NHS Mental Health and Disability Trust in England was conducted to describe research capacity and culture compared with previously reported samples, and to examine subgroup differences.

Methods

An online questionnaire was utilized. The main measure was the Research Capacity and Culture tool comprising measures of individual's perceived research skills and of team and organizational research culture. Previous studies using the same measure were systematically identified, and pooled results, weighted by sample size, were calculated. Analyses were descriptive (current sample versus previous results) and inferential (comparisons between demographic and professional groups within the current sample).

Results

N = 293 people completed the survey. The median item scores were poorer than those of pooled samples from studies reporting median item scores on 39/51 (76.5%) occasions and poorer than those pooled samples of studies reporting mean item scores on 51/51 (100.0%) occasions. Individual capability for research was in the 'less than adequate' range more than in previous samples (71.4% vs. 42.9%). For team culture items, the proportions were 84.2% vs. 78.9%, while most responses about organizational culture were in the 'adequate' range (55.6% vs. 66.7%). Staff >20 years employment had poorer perceptions of team and organizational culture.

Conclusion

Perceptions of individual research capacity and team and organizational culture were poor compared with previous studies, most of which were conducted in non-mental health settings. There is need for development of research capacity and culture in mental health services including opportunities to develop basic research skills through to strategic developments to promote clinical academic careers. There is considerable room for improvement in the way organizations support research and signpost opportunities.

Increasing nursing and midwifery research leadership: impact evaluation of the National Institute for Health and Care Research Senior Nurse and Midwife Research Leader Programme at 1 year

Background

Although nurses and midwives make up the largest sector of the National Health Service (NHS) workforce, studies have identified a lack of knowledge, skills and confidence to engage and lead research. In 2018, the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) invested in the development of a 3-year Senior Nurse Midwife Research Leader (SNMRL) Programme aimed at developing nursing and midwifery research capacity and capability. This review was conducted at the end of year one as part of an ongoing impact evaluation of the programme.

Aim

To evaluate the impact of activities undertaken by NIHR SNMRL at the end of year one of the programme.

Method

The content of anonymised end-of-year one activity, self-reported by SNMRL, was coded independently and deductively analysed by a project team using the modified Visible ImpaCT Of Research framework (VICTOR). Exemplar case studies were selected by the team to illustrate activity within domains. Working group members coded two reports independently then compared them in pairs to increase inter-rater reliability and the quality and consistency of coding.

Results

Reports from 63 of 66 SNMRL were submitted and included for analysis. Reporting reflected progress towards NIHR programme objectives. These included acting as a programme ambassador, creating a vibrant research culture, supporting staff recruitment and retention, enhancing organisational reputation and clinical academic outputs. Networking and collaboration locally, regionally and nationally were widely reported.

Conclusions

The SNMRL cohort reported initiating multiple initiatives aimed at influencing organisational research culture, service provision and supporting nursing/midwifery engagement with research. Evaluation indicated progress to address barriers to research engagement within NHS Trusts.

Integrating research in health professions education: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Integrating teaching and research may boost students' learning and improve future clinical practice when incorporated into education. Explorations of health professions students' involvement in the research processes and their learning outcomes are sparse. Thus, the purpose of this scoping review is to explore the existing scientific literature on courses involving students from health professions education in research activities. The research questions are: Which parts of the research process are the health professions students involved in, and what are the students' main learning outcomes related to the research process reported to be?

METHODS

A scoping review following the six-step approach of Arksey and O'Malley was undertaken. We searched four electronic databases to identify studies focusing on research-based teaching in health professions education. Inspired by content analysis, we identified key concepts relating to the research process and learning outcomes.

RESULTS

We screened 1084 abstracts, reviewed 95 full-text reports, and included 24 for analysis. Overall, the students were more involved in conducting and disseminating research than in the planning phases. Learning outcomes were most frequently reported as specific research skills, such as conducting literature reviews, writing academically, and presenting results, but also as improved understanding of research in general as well as improved motivation and confidence in conducting research.

CONCLUSIONS

The heterogeneity of educational programs, study designs, and measures makes it difficult to draw conclusions across the studies included in the review. More research is needed to conclude whether health professions students who actively engage in research gain a better understanding of the research process, become more likely to pursue research in their practice, or are more motivated to choose an academic career.

The value of allied health professional research engagement on healthcare performance: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Existing evidence suggests that clinician and organisation engagement in research can improve healthcare performance. With the increase in allied health professional (AHP) research activity, it is imperative for healthcare organisations, clinicians, managers, and leaders to understand research engagement specifically within allied health fields. This systematic review aims to examine the value of research engagement by allied health professionals and organisations on healthcare performance.

METHODS

This systematic review had a two-stage search strategy. Firstly, the papers from a previous systematic review examining the effect of research engagement in healthcare were screened to identify papers published pre-2012. Secondly, a multi-database search was used to conduct a re-focused update of the previous review, focusing specifically on allied health to identify publications from 2012-2021. Studies which examined the value of allied health research engagement on healthcare performance were included. All stages of the review were conducted by two reviewers independently. Each study was assessed using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. A narrative synthesis was completed to analyse the similarities and differences between and within the different study types.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included, comprising of mixed research designs, of which six were ranked as high importance. The findings indicated that AHP research engagement appears related to positive findings in improvements to processes of care. The review also identified the most common mechanisms which may link research engagement with these improvements.

DISCUSSION

This landmark systematic review and narrative synthesis suggests value in AHP research engagement in terms of both processes of care and more tentatively, of healthcare outcomes. While caution is required because of the lack of robust research studies, overall the findings support the agenda for growing AHP research. Recommendations are made to improve transparent reporting of AHP research engagement and to contribute essential evidence of the value of AHP research engagement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review protocol was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews, PROSPERO (registration number CRD42021253461 ).

Development of a framework and research impact capture tool for nursing, midwifery, allied health professions, healthcare science, pharmacy and psychology (NMAHPPs)

BACKGROUND

There is an ambitious target to create a UK clinical academic workforce representing 1% of clinicians from nursing, midwifery, the allied health professions, healthcare science, pharmacy and psychology (NMAHPPs). Understanding and recording the impact that clinical academics make across healthcare services is crucial if we are to grow, value and support this highly skilled workforce group. However, it is currently difficult to systematically record, collate and report the impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. The aims of this project were to i) develop a framework outlining the impacts that were important for key stakeholder groups, and ii) create and pilot a research impact capture tool to record these impacts.

METHODS

The framework was developed from the existing literature. It was refined, remodelled and approved by multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement, including patient and public representatives, healthcare managers and research-active clinicians. The framework was converted into a series of questions to create an electronic research impact capture tool, which was also refined through feedback from these stakeholder groups. The impact capture tool was piloted with research-active clinicians across a large NHS Trust and its associated organisations.

RESULTS

The impact framework contained eight elements: clinical background, research and service improvement activities, research capacity building, research into practice, patients and service users, research dissemination, economics and research funding, and collaborations. Thirty individuals provided data for the research impact capture tool pilot (55% response rate). Respondents reported a range of positive impacts representing all elements of the framework. Importantly, research-activity appeared to be a key driver for recruitment and retention in the sample population.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact capture tool is a feasible method of recording the breadth of impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. We encourage other organisations to collaboratively use and refine our impact capture tool, with the aim of standardising reporting, and facilitating discussions about research activity within clinical appraisal. Pooling and comparing data will also allow comparison between organisations, and assessment of change over time or after implementation of interventions aimed at supporting and increasing research activity.

Allied health professional research engagement and impact on healthcare performance: A systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Existing evidence suggests that clinician and organization engagement in research can improve healthcare processes of care and outcomes. However, current evidence has considered the relationship across all healthcare professions collectively. With the increase in allied health clinical academic and research activity, it is imperative for healthcare organizations, leaders and managers to understand engagement in research within these specific clinical fields. This systematic review aims to identify the effect of engagement in research by allied health professionals (AHPs) and organizations on healthcare performance.

METHODS

This systematic review has a two-stage search strategy. The first stage will be to screen a previous systematic review examining the effectiveness of engagement in research in health and social care to identify relevant papers published pre-2012. The search strategy used in the previous review will then be rerun, but with a specific focus on allied health. This multi-database search will identify publications from 2012 to date. Only studies that assessed the effectiveness of allied health engagement in research will be included. All stages of the review will be conducted by two reviewers independently, plus documented discussions with the wider research team when discrepancies occur. This systematic review protocol follows the EQUATOR reporting guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P).

DISCUSSION

The findings of this review will make a significant contribution to the evidence base around the effect of allied health engagement in research on healthcare performance. It will provide insights for clinicians and managers looking to understand the consequences of developing AHP research capability and capacity. The findings of this review will also aim to make recommendations for future evaluation approaches for engagement in research interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, registration number CRD42021253461.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject This study will provide valuable evidence for professionals and policymakers seeking to understand engagement in research in the allied health disciplines. Where supported by the data, there may be recommendations for future research regarding specific variables to be considered when planning and evaluating engagement in research in allied health practice. What this paper adds to existing knowledge A previous systematic review identified a positive association between clinician and organization engagement in research and improved processes of care and health outcomes. The reviews' findings have been used as a justification for clinicians and organizations to increase research capacity. That review evaluated literature published before 2012 and the studies that were identified predominantly reported on engagement in research by medics and nurses. An updated review is now required to include research published since 2012. This review will specifically focus on the effect of engagement in research within allied health disciplines. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Research activity among AHPs is gaining momentum. Given this growth in AHP research activity and the rise in dedicated clinical academic roles, a contemporary review to identify the specific effect of AHP engagement in research on healthcare performance is prudent. The findings will inform clinicians, clinical managers and leaders of the potential impact of research activities by AHP clinicians and organizations. This will support the planning and development of initiatives focused on research capacity, capability and culture within allied health.

Developing a clinical academic career pathway in a Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

Background

Despite growing evidence of the impact that clinical academic (CA) staff have on patient care and clinical practice, there are disproportionately low numbers of nurses, allied health professionals (AHPs) and other healthcare professionals in CA joint roles, compared to their medical colleagues.

Aim

To describe the initial development of a CA career pathway for nurses, AHPs and other healthcare professionals in a Community and Mental Health NHS Trust.

Methods

Kotter's 8-Step Change Model was used to expand opportunities and research culture across an NHS Trust.

Results

A variety of capacity and capability initiatives at different academic levels were created to support CA development and to complement those available externally. These opportunities were underpinned by a research and development strategy, senior leadership buy-in, manager and clinical staff support, and targeted organisation-wide communication.

Conclusion

The ongoing development of innovative CA opportunities in the Trust, alongside greater support for staff interested in pursuing CA careers, has resulted in a growing number of individuals successful in developing as CAs. This has led to a growth in research culture in the organisation and a greater understanding of what CA staff can bring to patient care, the clinical service and the wider organisation.

Reflections on contributing to health research: A qualitative interview study with research participants and patient advisors

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to explore individuals' experiences of contributing to health research and to identify the types of impact that are perceived as important by participants or patient and public advisors. Specifically, research led by NMAHPP clinicians (Nursing, Midwifery, Allied health professions, Healthcare science, Psychology and Pharmacy).

METHODS

Semi-structured one-to-one interviews were conducted with health research participants and patient or public advisors. Interviewees were recruited from five UK sites and via social media. Interview transcripts were analysed using Thematic Analysis to identify key themes and areas of disagreement.

RESULTS

Twenty-one interviews were completed, and four main themes were identified. The first, optimising research experiences, included personal reflections and broader recommendations to improve participant experiences. The second, connecting health research with healthcare, described research as key for the continued development of healthcare, but illustrated that communication between research teams, participants, and clinicians could be improved. The third theme explored the personal impacts of contributing to research, with interviewees recalling common positive experiences. The final theme discussed capturing research impacts. Interviewees highlighted potential priorities for different stakeholders, but emphasised that financial impacts should not be the sole factor.

CONCLUSION

Individuals who were involved in NMAHPP health research recalled positive experiences and reported good relationships with their research teams. They felt that their contributions were valued. Suggested strategies to optimise the research experience focused on simplifying documentation, clear signposting of the research activities involved, and feedback on the research findings. Routine sharing of relevant research data with clinicians was also recommended. Personal impacts included a deeper understanding of their health condition or health more broadly, and increased confidence interacting with healthcare and other professionals. These findings will be used to inform development of a framework to capture the impact of NMAHPP research.

Role and Function of the Clinical Tutor in Mental Health Nursing in Ireland

The clinical tutor (CT) in mental health nursing is a role aimed at supporting the learning needs of mental health nursing students undertaking a 12-month post-registration programme. This paper aims to examine the role of the clinical tutor in mental health nursing in Ireland by describing the experience of nursing students and key service stakeholders. A qualitative descriptive design was employed using focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews. Two focus groups were conducted with 14 nursing students in the final week of their one-year programme. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with seven service stakeholders and service leaders. Participants reported positive experiences of working with the clinical tutor and valued the role in terms of educational and pastoral support. Participants suggested the role strengthened the link between theory and practice and enhanced the relationship between the higher education institute and clinical sites. However, a lack of clarity existed in terms of role description. Participants suggested the CT role enhanced the link between the university and clinical areas providing benefits to both student and service stakeholders. Implementing similar roles may benefit post-registration mental health nursing students in other jurisdictions. Further investigation on how the role operates from the perspective of those in the post may provide more clarity and enhance the development of such roles in the future.

A Survey of Resources and Nursing Workforce for Clinical Research Delivery in Paediatric Intensive Care Within the UK / Ireland

Introduction

Clinical research within Paediatric Intensive Care (PICU) is necessary to reduce morbidity and mortality associated within this resource-intensive environment. With UK PICUs encouraged to be research-active there was a drive to understand how centres support research delivery.

Aim

To identify the research workforce available within UK/Ireland PICUs to support clinical research delivery.

Method

An electronic survey, endorsed by the Paediatric Critical Care Society (PCCS), was designed and reported in accordance with CHERRIES guidelines. The survey was distributed by email to all UK/Ireland Nurse Managers and Medical/ Nursing Research leads, aiming for one response per site during the period of April-June 2021. Only one response per site was included in analysis.

Results

44 responses were received, representing 24/30 UK/Ireland sites (80% response rate). Responses from n = 21/30 units are included (three excluded for insufficient data). 90% (n = 19/21) units were research active, although only 52% (n = 11) had permanent research roles funded within their staffing establishment. The majority of units (n = 18, 86%) had less than two WTE research nurses. Resources were felt to be sufficient for current research delivery by 43% of units (n = 9), but this confidence diminished to 19% (n = 4) when considering their ability to support future research. The top barriers to research conduct were insufficiently funded/unfunded studies (52%; n = 11), clinical staff too busy to support research activity (52%; n = 11) and short-term/fixed-term contracts for research staff (38%; n = 8).

Conclusion

Despite the perceived importance of research and 90% of responding UK/Ireland PICUs being research active, the majority have limited resources to support research delivery. This has implications for their ability to participate in future multi-centre trials and opportunities to support the development of future medical/nursing clinical academics. Further work is required to identify optimum models of clinical research delivery.

What is known about clinician researcher careers in allied health? A scoping review of the last decade

PURPOSE

Although the benefits of clinician researchers for health services are now more clearly recognised, their career development is not well understood. Hence, the purpose of this paper, a scoping review, is to determine what has been discussed in the literature about career opportunities for allied health (AH) clinician researchers in health services.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

A structured literature search was completed in December 2020 for literature published 2010-2020 in English. A total of 2,171 unique abstracts were found and screened by two reviewers and 206 articles progressed to full text screening.

FINDINGS

Forty-six studies were ultimately included; however, only two of these had aims directly related to AH clinician researcher careers, with the remainder containing only incidental data on this topic. Over half (56.5%) of the included studies were conducted in Australia, with a variety of AH professions represented. In terms of research design, 52.2% used cross-sectional survey designs, while case studies and qualitative research designs were also common. Key observations were that varying terminology and definitions were used, and there was little information about the inclusion of research in clinical positions or opportunities for formal clinical researcher positions in health services. There was some evidence to support that there are limited career opportunities after PhD completion, and that current career pathways are insufficient. There was conflicting evidence on whether engagement in research is beneficial for clinical career progression.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This review highlights a lack of research on this topic and outlines future directions to better support career pathways for AH clinician researchers.

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.

Impacts of clinical academic activity: qualitative interviews with healthcare managers and research-active nurses, midwives, allied health professionals and pharmacists

OBJECTIVES

To explore the perceived impacts of clinical academic activity among the professions outside medicine.

DESIGN

Qualitative semistructured interviews.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

There were two groups of interviewees: Research-active nurses, midwives, allied health professionals, healthcare scientists, psychologists and pharmacists (NMAHPPs) and managers of these professions. All participants were employed in a single, multisite healthcare organisation in the UK.

ANALYSIS

Interview transcripts were analysed using the framework method to identify key themes, subthemes and areas of divergence.

RESULTS

Four themes were identified. The first, cultural shifts, described the perceived improvements in the approach to patient care and research culture that were associated with clinical academic activity. The second theme explored visibility and included the positive reputation that clinical academics were identified as bringing to the organisation in contrast with perceived levels of invisibility and inaccessibility of these roles. The third theme identified the impacts of the clinical academic pathways, including the precarity of these roles. The final theme explored making impact tangible, and described interviewees' suggestions of possible methods to record and demonstrate impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Perceived positive impacts of NMAHPP clinical academic activity focused on interlinked positive changes for patients and clinical teams. This included delivery of evidence-based healthcare, patient involvement in clinical decision making and improved staff recruitment and retention. However, the positive impacts of clinical academic activity often centred around individual clinicians and did not necessarily translate throughout the organisation. The current clinical academic pathway was identified as causing tension between the perceived value of clinical academic activity and the need to find sufficient staffing to cover clinical services.