BackgroundBuilding research capacity in health services has been recognised internationally as important in order to produce a sound evidence base for decision-making in policy and practice. Activities to increase research capacity for, within, and by practice include initiatives to support individuals and teams, organisations and networks. Little has been discussed or concluded about how to measure the effectiveness of research capacity building (RCB)DiscussionThis article attempts to develop the debate on measuring RCB. It highlights that traditional outcomes of publications in peer reviewed journals and successful grant applications may be important outcomes to measure, but they may not address all the relevant issues to highlight progress, especially amongst novice researchers. They do not capture factors that contribute to developing an environment to support capacity development, or on measuring the usefulness or the 'social impact' of research, or on professional outcomes.The paper suggests a framework for planning change and measuring progress, based on six principles of RCB, which have been generated through the analysis of the literature, policy documents, empirical studies, and the experience of one Research and Development Support Unit in the UK. These principles are that RCB should: develop skills and confidence, support linkages and partnerships, ensure the research is 'close to practice', develop appropriate dissemination, invest in infrastructure, and build elements of sustainability and continuity. It is suggested that each principle operates at individual, team, organisation and supra-organisational levels. Some criteria for measuring progress are also given.SummaryThis paper highlights the need to identify ways of measuring RCB. It points out the limitations of current measurements that exist in the literature, and proposes a framework for measuring progress, which may form the basis of comparison of RCB activities. In this way it could contribute to establishing the effectiveness of these interventions, and establishing a knowledge base to inform the science of RCB.

The discourse in healthcare Knowledge Mobilisation (KMb) literature has shifted from simple, linear models of research knowledge production and action to more iterative and complex models. These aim to blend multiple stakeholders’ knowledge with research knowledge to address the research-practice gap. It has been suggested there is no ‘magic bullet’, but that a promising approach to take is knowledge co-creation in healthcare, particularly if a number of principles are applied. These include systems thinking, positioning research as a creative enterprise with human experience at its core, and paying attention to process within the partnership. This discussion paper builds on this proposition and extends it beyond knowledge co-creation to co-designing evidenced based interventions and implementing them. Within a co-design model, we offer a specific approach to share, mobilise and activate knowledge, that we have termed ‘collective making’. We draw on KMb, design, wider literature, and our experiences to describe how this framework supports and extends the principles of co-creation offered by Geenhalgh et al. [1] in the context of the state of the art of knowledge mobilisation. We describe how collective making creates the right ‘conditions’ for knowledge to be mobilised particularly addressing issues relating to stakeholder relationships, helps to discover, share and blend different forms of knowledge from different stakeholders, and puts this blended knowledge to practical use allowing stakeholders to learn about the practical implications of knowledge use and to collectively create actionable products. We suggest this collective making has three domains of influence: on the participants; on the knowledge discovered and shared; and on the mobilisation or activation of this knowledge.

No abstract

Title. Factors influencing the development of evidence-based practice: a research tool Aim. The paper reports a study to develop and test a tool for assessing a range of factors influencing the development of evidence-based practice among clinical nurses. Background. Achieving evidence-based practice is a goal in nursing frequently cited by the profession and in government health policy directives. Assessing factors influencing the achievement of this goal, however, is complex. Consideration needs to be given to a range of factors, including different types of evidence used to inform practice, barriers to achieving evidence-based practice, and the skills required by nurses to implement evidence-based care. Methods. Measurement scales currently available to investigate the use of evidence in nursing practice focus on nurses' sources of knowledge and on barriers to the use of research evidence. A new, wider ranging Developing Evidence-Based Practice questionnaire was developed and tested for its measurement properties in two studies. In study 1, a sample of 598 nurses working at two hospitals in one strategic health authority in northern England was surveyed. In study 2, a slightly expanded version of the questionnaire was employed in a survey of 689 community nurses in 12 primary care organizations in two strategic health authorities, one in northern England and the other in southern England. Findings. The measurement characteristics of the new questionnaire were shown to be acceptable. Ten significant, and readily interpretable, factors were seen to underlie nurses' relation to evidence-based practice. Conclusion. Strategies to promote evidence-based practice need to take account of the differing needs of nurses and focus on a range of sources of evidence. The Developing Evidence-Based Practice questionnaire can assist in assessing the specific 'evidencing' tendencies of any given group of nurses.

Publisher: Policy PressThis article discusses research capacity building and its relevance for health practitioners using allied health professionals (AHPs) as a case example. Allied health professionals is a term used to represent a diverse group of health workers, each with a discrete clinical focus, whose needs for research capacity building are likely to be similar to one another and to other medical and nursing professionals. The work of AHPs challenges many current research paradigms being complex and multidisciplinary in nature, often delivered in community settings and focusing on holistic outcomes. This article examines some of the current drivers in the healthcare context and highlights tensions for AHPs in developing their research base in basic science and applied health research. The authors argue for a strategic approach to research capacity building and examine the implications of current policy initiatives for AHP roles and activity in research. The importance of a sustained approach to capacity building is underscored.

BackgroundResearch 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsEight 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).ConclusionsThis 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0363-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: This paper describes an evaluation of an initiative to increase the research capability of clinical groups in primary and community care settings in a region of the United Kingdom. The 'designated research team' (DRT) approach was evaluated using indicators derived from a framework of six principles for research capacity building (RCB) which include: building skills and confidence, relevance to practice, dissemination, linkages and collaborations, sustainability and infrastructure development.

Summary There is an urgent need to provide evidence-based well-being and mental health support for front-line clinical staff managing the COVID-19 pandemic who are at risk of moral injury and mental illness. We describe the evidence base for a tiered model of care, and practical steps on its implementation.