PurposeA sound, scientific base of high quality research is needed to inform service planning and decision making and enable improved policy and practice. However, some areas of health practice, particularly many of the allied health areas, are generally considered to have a low evidence base. In order to successfully build research capacity in allied health, a clearer understanding is required of what assists and encourages research as well as the barriers and challenges.Participants and methodsThis study used written surveys to collect data relating to motivators, enablers, and barriers to research capacity building. Respondents were asked to answer questions relating to them as individuals and other questions relating to their team. Allied health professionals were recruited from multidisciplinary primary health care teams in Queensland Health. Eighty-five participants from ten healthcare teams completed a written version of the research capacity and culture survey.ResultsThe results of this study indicate that individual allied health professionals are more likely to report being motivated to do research by intrinsic factors such as a strong interest in research. Barriers they identified to research are more likely to be extrinsic factors such as workload and lack of time. Allied health professionals identified some additional factors that impact on their research capacity than those reported in the literature, such as a desire to keep at the “cutting edge” and a lack of exposure to research. Some of the factors influencing individuals to do research were different to those influencing teams. These results are discussed with reference to organizational behavior and theories of motivation.ConclusionSupporting already motivated allied health professional individuals and teams to conduct research by increased skills training, infrastructure, and quarantined time is likely to produce better outcomes for research capacity building investment.

Research capacity building (RCB) in Australia has recently focussed on strategies that take a whole of system approach to developing research culture at individual, team and organisation levels. Although a theoretical framework exists, no tool has been published that quantitatively measures the effectiveness of RCB interventions aimed at these three levels. A sample of 134 allied health workers was used to validate the research capacity and culture (RCC) tool. Item level analysis was undertaken using Cronbach's α and exploratory factor analysis, and test-retest reliability was examined using intra-class correlations (ICC). The tool had one factor emerge for each domain, with excellent internal consistency for organisation, team and individual domains (α=0.95, 0.96 and 0.96 respectively; and factor loadings ranges of 0.58-0.89, 0.65-0.89 and 0.59-0.93 respectively). The overall mean score (total) for each domain was: 5.4 (inter-quartile range 3.9-7.7), 4.4 (IQR 2.6-6.1) and 3.9 (IQR 2.9-6) for the organisation, team and individual domains respectively. Test-retest reliability was strong for each domain: organisation ICC=0.77, team ICC=0.83 and individual ICC=0.82. The RCC tool has three domains measuring research capacity and culture at organisation, team and individual levels. It demonstrates excellent internal consistency and strong test-retest reliability.

BackgroundEvidence-based practice aims to achieve better health outcomes in the community. It relies on high quality research to inform policy and practice; however research in primary health care continues to lag behind that of other medical professions. The literature suggests that research capacity building (RCB) functions across four levels; individual, team, organisation and external environment. Many RCB interventions are aimed at an individual or team level, yet evidence indicates that many barriers to RCB occur at an organisational or external environment level. This study asks senior managers from a large healthcare organisation to identify the barriers and enablers to RCB. The paper then describes strategies for building allied health (AH) research capacity at an organisational level from a senior managers’ perspective.MethodsThis qualitative study is part of a larger collaborative RCB project. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with nine allied health senior managers. Recorded interviews were transcribed and NVivo was used to analyse findings and emergent themes were defined.ResultsThe dominant themes indicate that the organisation plays an integral role in building AH research capacity and is the critical link in creating synergy across the four levels of RCB. The organisation can achieve this by incorporating research into its core business with a whole of organisation approach including its mission, vision and strategic planning. Critical success factors include: developing a co-ordinated and multidisciplinary approach to attain critical mass of research-active AH and enhance learning and development; support from senior managers demonstrated through structures, processes and systems designed to facilitate research; forming partnerships to increase collaboration and sharing of resources and knowledge; and establishing in internal framework to promote recognition for research and career path opportunities.ConclusionsThis study identifies four key themes: whole of organisation approach; structures, processes and systems; partnerships and collaboration; and dedicated research centres, units and positions. These themes form the foundation of a model which can be applied to assist in achieving synergy across the four levels of RCB, overcome barriers and create an environment that supports and facilitates research development in AH.

Background There is a continuing need for research capacity building initiatives for primary health care professionals. Historically strategies have focused on interventions aimed at individuals but more recently theoretical frameworks have proposed team-based approaches. Few studies have evaluated these new approaches. This study aims to evaluate a team-based approach to research capacity building (RCB) in primary health using a validated quantitative measure of research capacity in individual, team and organisation domains. Methods A non-randomised matched-pairs trial design was used to evaluate the impact of a multi-strategy research capacity building intervention. Four intervention teams recruited from one health service district were compared with four control teams from outside the district, matched on service role and approximate size. All were multi-disciplinary allied health teams with a primary health care role. Random-effects mixed models, adjusting for the potential clustering effect of teams, were used to determine the significance of changes in mean scores from pre- to post-intervention. Comparisons of intervention versus control groups were made for each of the three domains: individual, team and organisation. The Individual Domain measures the research skills of the individual, whereas Team and Organisation Domains measure the team/organisation's capacity to support and foster research, including research culture. Results In all three domains (individual, team and organisation) there were no occasions where improvements were significantly greater for the control group (comprising the four control teams, n = 32) compared to the intervention group (comprising the four intervention teams, n = 37) either in total domain score or domain item scores. However, the intervention group had a significantly greater improvement in adjusted scores for the Individual Domain total score and for six of the fifteen Individual Domain items, and to a lesser extent with Team and Organisation Domains (two items in the Team and one in the Organisation domains). Conclusions A team-based approach to RCB resulted in considerable improvements in research skills held by individuals for the intervention group compared to controls; and some improvements in the team and organisation's capacity to support research. More strategies targeted at team and organisation research-related policies and procedures may have resulted in increased improvements in these domains.

Overall, findings suggest caution in directly incorporating public preferences as weights for priority setting unless the methods used to elicit the weights can be shown to be appropriate and robust in the priority-setting context.

ObjectivesThis study provides insights into the validity and acceptability of Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) and profile-case Best Worst Scaling (BWS) methods for eliciting preferences for health care in a priority-setting context.MethodsAn adult sample (N = 24) undertook a traditional DCE and a BWS choice task as part of a wider survey on Health Technology Assessment decision criteria. A ‘think aloud’ protocol was applied, whereby participants verbalized their thinking while making choices. Internal validity and acceptability were assessed through a thematic analysis of the decision-making process emerging from the qualitative data and a repeated choice task.ResultsA thematic analysis of the decision-making process demonstrated clear evidence of ‘trading’ between multiple attribute/levels for the DCE, and to a lesser extent for the BWS task. Limited evidence consistent with a sequential decision-making model was observed for the BWS task. For the BWS task, some participants found choosing the worst attribute/level conceptually challenging. A desire to provide a complete ranking from best to worst was observed. The majority (18,75%) of participants indicated a preference for DCE, as they felt this enabled comparison of alternative full profiles. Those preferring BWS were averse to choosing an undesirable characteristic that was part of a ‘package’, or perceived BWS to be less ethically conflicting or burdensome. In a repeated choice task, more participants were consistent for the DCE (22,92%) than BWS (10,42%) (p = 0.002).ConclusionsThis study supports the validity and acceptability of the traditional DCE format. Findings relating to the application of BWS profile methods are less definitive. Research avenues to further clarify the comparative merits of these preference elicitation methods are identified.

Introduction: Healthcare assistants perform a broad range of clinical and administrative tasks across many clinical settings and are supervised by most professional groups. This diversity creates challenges for maintaining a consistent scope of practice and consistent patterns of skill utilisation. It is not clear whether formal education in universities for allied health assistants (AHAs) could better shape the role and opportunities for the AHA workforce. Methods and analysis: An exploratory qualitative study was designed to investigate the perspectives of senior allied health clinicians and academics about the educational needs and workplace opportunities for AHAs. We were interested in whether university education for AHAs could help to shape consistent roles and expectations of AHAs for the future workforce. A convenience sample of participants was invited to exploratory semi-structured interviews, and their responses were thematically analysed and integrated. Results: Twelve participants, representing eight different allied health professions, were interviewed. Three themes emerged. Participants described the diverse roles, capabilities and expectations of the health assistant workforce. Current vocational training was considered inconsistent and insufficient, and participants reported significant local training occurring to meet the expectations of different work environments. Future educational pathways in university were not supported by any participants for many, largely practical, reasons.

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: The field of implementation science is critical for embedding research evidence into healthcare practice, benefiting individuals, organizations, governments, and the broader community. Implementation science is messy and complex, underpinned by many theories and frameworks. Efficacious interventions for older people with multiple comorbidities exist, yet many lack effectiveness evaluation relevant to pragmatic implementation within aged care practice. This article outlines the conceptualization and development of an Implementation Framework for Aged Care (IFAC), fit-for-purpose for an aged care organization, Bolton Clarke, intent on embedding evidence into practice.Method: A four-stage process was adopted to (1) explore context and relevant literature to conceptualize the IFAC; (2) identify key elements for a draft IFAC;(3) expand elements and refine the draft in consultation with experts and (4) apply the IFAC to three existing projects, identifying key learnings. A checklist to operationalize the IFAC was then developed. Results:The IFAC is grounded in codesign principles and encapsulated by the implementation context, from a social, cultural and political perspective. The IFAC addresses the questions of (1) why do we need to change?; (2) what do we know?; (3) who will benefit?; (4) who will make the change?; ( 5) what strategies will be used?; and ( 6) what difference are we making? Three pilot projects: early adoption of a Wellness and Reablement approach; a care worker and virtual physiotherapist-led program to prevent falls; and a therapeutic horticulture program for residential communities, highlight learnings of applying the IFAC in practice. Conclusion:This fit-for-purpose IFAC was developed for a proactive and responsive aged care provider. The simplicity of the six-question IFAC is underpinned by substantial theoretical perspectives for its elements and their connections.