Developing R&D capacity in a primary care trust: use of the R&D culture index

Abstract

There has traditionally been a low level of engagement of primary care practitioners with research. In the UK, primary care trusts (PCTs) now have some responsibility for the encouragement of research and development in primary care. The aim of this study was to assess the current level of research activity and capacity for research within a PCT. A questionnaire, incorporating a recently developed and validated research and development culture index, was sent to all 572 health care professionals and staff under the auspices of North Tyneside Research PCT. Data analysis used nonparametric tests of association including chi-squared, MannÀWhitney U and Spearman's rank order correlation. There was a 50.3 per cent response rate to the questionnaire. Groups more likely to show an increased capacity for research included those with postgraduate qualifications and those in post for the least time. General practitioners were less likely than other professional groupings to declare personal skills or aptitude for research. The two most important factors thought to contribute towards the development of a culture of R&D were having access to people to support development and changes in professional practice and having access to training and development opportunities. The use of the R&D culture index enabled groups to be identified that may be more research interested and can therefore be targeted to increase research capacity. The R&D culture index could be used by other PCTs wishing to define and develop research capacity in primary care.

Strategic Communication Intervention to Stimulate Interest in Research and Evidence-Based Practice: A 12-Year Follow-Up Study With Registered Nurses

“…Most research centering on nurses and how they use research, however, was conducted in the hospital setting rather than in the context of primary care. Historically, primary care research has not been prioritized, for which reason interest in and enthusiasm for this field have been limited (Funk, Champagne, Wiese, & Tornquist, ; Whitford, Walker, Jelley, Clarke, & Watson, ). Because of the contextual differences between these two settings, research results are not always directly transferable between them (Nilsson Kajermo, Alinaghizadeh, Falk, Wandell, & Tornkvist, ).…”

The University of Limerick Education and Research Network for General Practice (ULEARN-GP): practice characteristics and general practitioner perspectives

“…Similarly, GPs in the UK (47) and nurses in Northern Ireland (48) prioritised organisational infrastructure and an appropriate working environment in developing research capacity as opposed to personal skills and attributes which were ranked relatively lower in importance. The Mant report 4confirmed the under-performance in terms of output in Irish primary care compared to the UK despite the fact that a similar proportion of primary healthcare professionals appear to be involved in research in both settings.…”

The University of Limerick Education and Research Network for General Practice (ULEARN-GP): practice characteristics and general practitioner perspectives

“…Similarly, GPs in the UK (47) and nurses in Northern Ireland (48) prioritised organisational infrastructure and an appropriate working environment in developing research capacity as opposed to personal skills and attributes which were ranked relatively lower in importance. The Mant report (4) confirmed the under-performance in terms of output in Irish primary care compared to the UK despite the fact that a similar proportion of primary healthcare professionals appear to be involved in research in both settings.…”