Difficulties in developing a nursing research culture in the UK

Exploring Nursing Research Culture in Clinical Practice: Qualitative Ethnographic Study

BACKGROUND

Cultivating a positive research culture is considered the key to facilitating the utilization of research findings. In the realm of clinical nursing research, nurses conducting research may find the utilization of findings challenging due to the lack of a positive research culture.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify and describe the sociocultural context of nursing research in a clinical setting at a Korean tertiary hospital.

METHODS

We included participant observation and ethnographic interviews with 6 registered nurses working in a medical-surgical unit in a Korean tertiary hospital who had experience conducting nursing research in clinical settings in this qualitative ethnographic study. The study was conducted from April 2022 to May 2022. Data analysis was conducted using Spradley's ethnographic approach, which includes domain analysis, taxonomic analysis, componential analysis, and theme analysis, and occurred concurrently with data collection.

RESULTS

The overarching theme identified for nursing research culture in clinical practice was the development of a driving force for growth within the clinical environment. This theme encompasses (1) balancing positive and negative influences in the research process, (2) fostering transformational change for both nurses and patients, and (3) promoting complementary communication among nurses.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical research plays a vital role in nursing practice that requires a balance of supportive elements, such as patient-driven research questions and hospital research support, with practical challenges such as shift work and high work intensity. This study found that a positive clinical nursing research culture can serve as a unifying bridge, connecting researchers, patients, who serve as both the origin and ultimate beneficiaries of research, and hospitals that facilitate research endeavors. Future research should explore whether the themes derived from this study fully reflect a clinical nursing research culture comprising patients, nurses, and the hospital environment and determine what requirements are needed to establish such a nursing research culture.

Research capacity for everyone? A case study of two academic nursing schools' capacity building strategies

This paper reports the findings of a comparative case-study project which evaluated the development of nursing research capacity in two academic schools in the United Kingdom. The research compared the approaches used, explored the experiences of staff during the implementation process, and identified the outcomes which were achieved. The methods employed were in-depth interviews, focus groups and documentary analysis. A literature review was undertaken to inform the design and conduct of the study (Segrott et al., 2006).

The project's findings are divided into five sections. We begin by discussing the strategies implemented by the two schools, and their overall success. We then examine the wider development of a research culture, explore the problems and challenges experienced, and consider the management and organisation of capacity building. The final theme concerns the role played by the schools' wider institutional and political contexts.

The paper explores the relative strengths of inclusive and exclusive approaches to staff development, and the importance of integrated academic leadership and effective management. The study highlights the need for academic schools to forge strong connections between experienced researchers and novices, as well as between teaching and research activities.

Nurturing a positive research culture: the Academic Department of Military Nursing perspective

The structure and quality of nurse education in the UK has been scrutinised for many decades, culminating in a significant shift from ward-based learning at certificate level to that at diploma or degree level being delivered in higher education institutions. This professionalisation of nursing in the last decade of the 20th century was influenced by major changes in Department of Health policy, which demanded that a sound evidence base must be applied to nursing practice thereby replicating the model of evidence-based medicine. The requirement for care delivery to be evidence based is built on the premise that a continual research programme to investigate, disseminate and implement findings will enhance decision making in the clinical environment, thereby improving standards of care and patient outcomes. However, for this to be achieved there is an organisational responsibility to drive a positive research culture in order to effectively generate new knowledge and expertise. This paper explores the nursing research culture in the NHS and the strategies employed by the Defence Medical Services for supporting its nurses to generate the high-quality evidence that informs best practice.

Embracing a culture in conducting research requires more than nurses' enthusiasm

AIMS

This study explored the perceptions of clinical nurses about their research knowledge and experiences to highlight any gaps in nurse education in supporting research activities in healthcare organisations.

BACKGROUND

Nurses' research activities have been encouraged by moving hospital-based nurse education into higher education institutions whereby there is a stronger emphasis on teaching and developing nursing research at both undergraduate and post graduate levels. They were further encouraged by the introduction of advanced nurse practitioner roles, in the hope to increase opportunities for research participation. Whilst nurses' research activities have been explored in many countries, nurses in Singapore where there is a strong emphasis on evidence-based practice have not been investigated.

METHODS

A mixed-methods exploratory descriptive design, using a questionnaire based on open and closed questions was employed to obtain the views of clinical nurses about their capacity and organisational support in conducting research. The questionnaires were distributed to convenient samples who attended one of the 4 research seminars held on separate occasions between July and August 2011 in Singapore.

RESULTS

A total of 146 nurses were recruited. Whilst nurses demonstrated strong enthusiasm in conducting research, this characteristic feature was not adequate for them to embrace a research culture in organisations. Active participation as co-investigators was not possible in healthcare organisations where skewed distribution of resources towards medical and nurse researchers was perceived.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest a need for a significant shift in focus on educational training from imparting research contents to providing opportunities to experience the research process. Organisational support in terms of protected time and financial support ought to be in place for nursing research experience. The findings also demonstrated that in places where organisational support was available, awareness of research opportunities such as educational and organisational support needed to be strengthened. This in turn would enable more nurses particularly those who provide direct patient care to conduct research within the context of the competing nursing practice demands.

Identifying mental health nursing research priorities: A Delphi study

Abstract Engaging in research and using evidence based practice are essential for mental health nurses to provide quality nursing care to consumers and families. This paper reports on a Delphi study that identified the top ten mental health nursing research priorities at one area health service in Australia servicing a population of 840,000 people. Initially 390 research questions were identified by nurses and these were then reduced to 56 broader questions. Finally, the top ten questions were ranked in order of importance. The priority questions were clinically and professionally focused and included research into the delivery and organisation of mental health services and the need to design and evaluate new practice paradigms for nurses in the primary care setting. The mental health knowledge and skill set of graduates from Australian comprehensive nursing programs along with improved recruitment and retention of graduates in mental health were also identified priority areas for research.

[Health care professional view on biomedical research]

Biomedical research is a necessary subject and enjoys social prestige.

AIMS

To ascertain the views and expectations of health care professionals on research, analysing the influence of their academic training and professional level.

DESIGN AND METHODS

An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to physicians and qualified nurses working in a, tertiary hospital, seven primary care centres and two nursing homes (health care centres for the elderly).

RESULTS

Cronbach's coefficient alpha=0.817. Response rate: 64% (432 out of 682 questionnaires distributed). Women: 71%. Mean age: 37 years. Mean years involved in health care: 14 years. 79% of people considered research as a part of their job, although in practice only 43% were doing it. Overall participation in activities was: Conferences (71%), education (42%), publications (34%) and ongoing projects (17%). Physicians dedicated more off duty time (37%) to research than qualified nurses (CI95%: 28 to 46%). The majority of physicians having their doctoral thesis would like to carry out research activities, and 84% did so in their free time and 74% had active research projects in progress. They identified physician workload as the main factor that impedes performing research. Proposals to increase research activities were focused on improving resources.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of health care professionals expressed a great motivation. The perception of research varies depending upon professional qualification. Physicians having their doctoral thesis were more involved and had a different perception of research, being more critical about available resources. Overall research perception was more positive among those with less academic training, as well as among those centres with less research activities.

A qualitative study exploring practice nurses’ experience of participating in a primary care–based randomised controlled trial

Abstract

The aim of this study is to explore the views of practice nurses’ recruiting into a primary care–based randomised controlled trial, and to investigate factors that influence the success of trial recruitment. It is known that time pressures, forgetfulness and lack of interest in the research topic negatively influence recruitment into research trials by General Practitioners (GPs), but no studies appear to have explored practice nurses’ experience of recruiting into trials. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a non-random purposive sample of 10 practice nurses who had participated in recruiting patients for the trial, and data were analysed using a thematic framework approach. Nurses who had been asked to take part in the study found it a positive experience, and had decided to take part because the area of research was of interest and could potentially benefit patients. Nurses who had been delegated the role of recruitment by the GP felt put upon and recruited less well. None of the nurses reported difficulties remembering to recruit patients and developed useful strategies to aid memory. Nurses often acted as gatekeepers, selecting which patients they offered the intervention to. Nurses with dedicated time for research recruited more successfully. For nurses who recruited during routine consultation, it was often the patient’s lack of interest in taking part in the trial, rather than time limitations that hindered recruitment. Overall, nurses were positive about recruiting into the trial, particularly if the research area could benefit patients and if directly asked to take part.

The student-supervisor relationship in the phD/Doctoral process

Many nurses in the United Kingdom are now undertaking PhDs; however, the process is both complex and time consuming. Research has shown that effective supervision can significantly influence the quality of the PhD and its eventual success or failure. Consequently, many common problems experienced during a PhD often relate to difficulties in the supervisory process. PhD students and supervisors often have different expectations, needs and ways of thinking and working. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to provide an overview of the key elements of research supervision. The paper is aimed at students, prospective students and supervisors involved in the PhD process and explores the perspectives of a student and a supervisor and discusses what each can and should reasonably expect from supervision, how to identify and address potential supervisory problems and how to maintain an effective working relationship.

[Difficulties and opportunities for research as perceived by nurses in Asturias (Spain)]

OBJECTIVE

To identify, through communicative consensus, the difficulties and opportunities for research perceived by nurses in Asturias (Spain).

METHOD

The Regional Ministry of Health and the Health Service of Asturias made an open call and 80 nurses from all fields (clinical, teaching, and management) were assigned to 10 groups. Using a nominal group technique, these nurses identified and prioritized the difficulties and opportunities they perceived for research. Through independent pairs, the research group analyzed the content of the contributions made.

RESULTS

In order of priority, the difficulties perceived were related to training deficit, lack of resources, lack of available time, little acknowledgement and support, and professional idiosyncrasy and sociology. The opportunities perceived were grouped into training opportunities, material resources -when known to exist-, support from experts, access to information resources, the existence of financial support, and time available when working in primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

The nurses identified the difficulties and opportunities that should be taken into account if strategies to stimulate nursing research are to be established. The situation should continue to be analyzed in order to provide possible solutions to the difficulties encountered, especially those related to professional idiosyncrasy and sociology.

Harnessing collaboration to build nursing research capacity: a research team journey

This paper discusses a qualitative evaluation study, designed to explore nursing lecturers' research capability development through their engagement as co-researchers in a larger case study project (referred to as the 'main project'). It explores the justification for supporting research capacity development using this collaborative approach, the process and experience of undertaking collaborative research, and the effectiveness of this model of collaboration in developing new researchers. The paper also makes connections between the process of undertaking the research (designed to offer opportunities for inexperienced researchers to be involved) and the main project findings (which explored the ways in which academic schools develop research capacity). We first set the main project in its wider context and map key issues relating to research capacity development and collaboration in the literature, before outlining how we involved neophyte and 'midiphyte' researchers. The evaluative study, which is the focus of this paper, discusses the experiences of the neophyte researchers, and explores the synergies between the main project's key findings and the process of undertaking it. We conclude with some principles for using collaboration to build research capacity, visualised through a conceptual model. While this project was located within two universities in the UK, the development of research skills amongst nurses is likely to have broad international relevance. NB1 References to 'nursing', 'nursing research', and 'nursing education' are taken throughout to apply equally to midwifery, midwifery research, and midwifery education. NB2 For the purpose of this project, neophyte researchers are defined as staff needing formal training in research and involvement in others' research, and 'midiphyte' researchers as those with some training but needing support to develop research ideas.