Evaluating a team-based approach to research capacity building using a matched-pairs study design

Abstract

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.

Learning to navigate and enriching the research process by engaging in a collaborative practice research capacity strategy

“…[6] Similar to other studies, our study participants described the challenges prioritizing the delivery of clinical service amidst balancing work and life [14,15] and engaging other colleagues in the research project. [15] In our study, this challenge was most predominant with health disciplines who often did not have another colleague to be able to backfill while they attended the CoP or worked on their research project. Other work has identified similar challenges that health disciplines have in conducting research.…”

“…Our study demonstrated the value of providing opportunity for nurses and health disciplines to engage in CPBR and undertake a project relevant to clinical practice that adds to the body of knowledge on the value of collaborative practice based research capacity building strategies [6][7][8][15][16][17] and communities of practice. [22,27,28] Despite the valuing of the experience, challenges emerged that necessitate future efforts to provide support for nurses and health disciplines participating in research capacity building strategies.…”

“…[8,14,22] This relationship requires having sufficient time for for the mentors to work with the teams to develop and conduct a research project with clear deliverables, timelines, and assigned responsibilites. [15] Support for mentorship and targeted team-based education for building research capacity has been reported in other studies. [11,16] In our study, the finding around the key role of the unit manager supporting their local research team is consistent with other work that identified managers to positively influence the unit culture and actively support research engagement.…”

“…Having a shared vision identified has also been reported elsewhere as a strength in conducting CPBR. [15] Further, study participants expressed interest in participating in collaborative practice and future research opportunities and that they would leverage the network established through participating in the IPBR-TC strategy. A team-based approach to build research capacity was reported to be effective in developing linkages and collaborations with participating members in primary care.…”

“…[14] Further, despite efforts to build research capacity through a variety of initiatives (e.g. educational programs, fellowships, funding), [6][7][8][15][16][17] nurses and health care professionals continue to report lacking skills and confidence to conduct research due to minimal or no experience and not having enough time to participate in research. [1,6,12,14,[18][19][20][21] In this context, an Academic Health Sciences Center (AHSC) developed and hosted a competitive grants competition with a comprehensive learning approach as part of a larger strategy aimed at building CPBR.…”