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.
We are delighted to bring you volume 54, issue 3 for the Journal of the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Respiratory care. The volume starts with Stefania Spiliopoulou who reports on an observational evaluation of intensive care rehabilitation outcomes in COVID-19 compared to other respiratory viruses. King et al then presents a single centre, retrospective valuation on the rapid adoption of the ICS/FICM guidance for prone positioning in adult critical care with mechanically ventilated patients. The third article is by Mansell et al and is an evaluation of observational outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who received a tracheostomy during the first pandemic surge. Bass et al then present a randomised controlled trail to investigate if an online exercise platform is an acceptable tool to promote exercise participation in adults with cystic fibrosis. Following this, Banks et al report on a service evaluation on home monitoring and self-management for adult patients with cystic fibrosis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tom Walker reports on an evaluation on the attendance and completion of cardiac rehabilitation following heart transplantation, and Drover et al report on their findings from a survey exploring the incidence of chest infection in wind musicians. As part of the Therapies in Critical Care Workforce Project, Twose et al present a scoping review on the role and staffing in critical care. The volume also includes a further output from the ACPRC editorial board, led by Dr. Una Jones. The editorial board is tasked with leading the scoping, commissioning, co-ordination, and delivery of all new ACPRC guidance documents and resources and in this publication, Cork et al present a scoping review on airway clearance techniques for the intubated adult. The final article is a systematic review and thematic synthesis protocol on life after critical illness by King et al. As always, we hope that you enjoy reading this issue of the ACPRC journal, and that you are inspired to write up and submit your work. We have now made a change to the submission process, with two submission windows per year closing on the 1st April and 1st November followed by two publications per year. Submission guidelines are available on the ACPRC website www.acprc.org.uk and are due to undergo some updates, so please review them prior to submitting to the journal. Please remember that we also provide members with support through the Research Champion and as editors we are very happy to discuss any potential article ideas with you too.
Allied health professional research capacity and culture has been the focus of growing research interest of late. The recent study by Comer et al. represents the largest survey of allied health research capacity and culture to date. We congratulate the authors on this work and would like to raise some discussion points in relation to their study.The authors have interpreted their research capacity and culture survey results using cut-off values to indicate a degree of adequacy in relation to perceived research success and/or skill level. To our knowledge, the constructs of the research capacity and culture tool have not been validated to an extent that would enable such an inference to be made.Comer et al. describe perceived individual research success and/or skill as adequate, but the rating of skills in areas necessary for the conduct of original research, such as writing research protocols, ethics submissions, securing funding, and writing for publication range from median scores one to three, which is considered ‘less than adequate’ on the interpretation scale used by the authors.The survey results for the individual and organisational domains reported in Comer et al. are comparable to other similar studies. However, they uniquely conclude research success and/or skill to be adequate in both domains, which is contrary to the interpretation of the other studies.The interpretation of allied health professional research success and skill offered by Cromer et al. differs from studies with similar results and is contrary to previous reports of insufficient research capacity in terms of research trained and active practitioners within these professions in the UK.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.