Measuring research capacity development in healthcare workers: a systematic review

Abstract

ObjectivesA key barrier in supporting health research capacity development (HRCD) is the lack of empirical measurement of competencies to assess skills and identify gaps in research activities. An effective tool to measure HRCD in healthcare workers would help inform teams to undertake more locally led research. The objective of this systematic review is to identify tools measuring healthcare workers’ individual capacities to conduct research.DesignSystematic review and narrative synthesis using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist for reporting systematic reviews and narrative synthesis and the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative studies.Data sources11 databases were searched from inception to 16 January 2020. The first 10 pages of Google Scholar results were also screened.Eligibility criteriaWe included papers describing the use of tools/to measure/assess HRCD at an individual level among healthcare workers involved in research. Qualitative, mixed and quantitative methods were all eligible. Search was limited to English language only.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently screened and reviewed studies using Covidence software, and performed quality assessments using the extraction log validated against the CASP qualitative checklist. The content method was used to define a narrative synthesis.ResultsThe titles and abstracts for 7474 unique records were screened and the full texts of 178 references were reviewed. 16 papers were selected: 7 quantitative studies; 1 qualitative study; 5 mixed methods studies; and 3 studies describing the creation of a tool. Tools with different levels of accuracy in measuring HRCD in healthcare workers at the individual level were described. The Research Capacity and Culture tool and the ‘Research Spider’ tool were the most commonly defined. Other tools designed for ad hoc interventions with good generalisability potential were identified. Three papers described health research core competency frameworks. All tools measured HRCD in healthcare workers at an individual level with the majority adding a measurement at the team/organisational level, or data about perceived barriers and motivators for conducting health research.ConclusionsCapacity building is commonly identified with pre/postintervention evaluations without using a specific tool. This shows the need for a clear distinction between measuring the outcomes of training activities in a team/organisation, and effective actions promoting HRCD. This review highlights the lack of globally applicable comprehensive tools to provide comparable, standardised and consistent measurements of research competencies.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019122310.

Barriers to research progress for perioperative care practitioners working in cardiothoracic surgery

“…The questionnaire’s closed questions (Figures 8 to 20) were designed to address the objectives of the study. Despite that, several tools to measure research capability have been developed, a ‘globally applicable comprehensive tools to provide comparable, standardised and consistent measurements of research competencies’ has not been found (Bilardi et al 2021: p1 ). Luckson et al (2018) developed several themes from exploring the research culture of nurses and AHPS in the United Kingdom around barriers, enablers and motivators for research.…”

Allied health professionals’ perceptions of research in the United Kingdom national health service: a survey of research capacity and culture

“…The validated Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) questionnaire [21] was selected as the best available tool to comprehensively measure perceptions of research capacity and culture through self-reported ratings of research success/skill across a range of individual, team-and organisation-level research constructs [23]. Previously published studies using the RCC tool in the UK have targeted relatively small samples of AHPs from a single healthcare organisation [24][25][26].…”

Allied health professionals’ research capacity: open to interpretation?

“…Comer et al are unique amongst these studies in concluding individual and organisational research success and/or skill level to be adequate. The absence of evidence and objective measures to determine an adequate skill and success level in AHP research capacity arguably enables this outlying interpretation [ 15 ]. Until progress is made in this respect, it is important that findings from all studies in this field are considered and serve as a proxy indicator of the current status to ensure that individual AHPs and the organisations in which they work are not overlooked in future RCB strategies.…”