Research activity, interest and skills in a health and social care setting, a snapshot of a primary care trust in northern England: implications for collaboration and capacity

Bacigalupo, Ruth; Cooke, Jo; Hawley, Mark

doi:10.1191/1463423606pc265oa

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evaluation involves assessing the success of an intervention against a set of indicators or criteria [ 35 , 36 ], which Meyrick and Sinkler [ 37 ] suggest should be based on underlying principles in relation to the initiative. For this reason the framework includes six principles of capacity building.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care

2005

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundBuilding research capacity in health services has been recognised internationally as important in order to produce a sound evidence base for decision-making in policy and practice. Activities to increase research capacity for, within, and by practice include initiatives to support individuals and teams, organisations and networks. Little has been discussed or concluded about how to measure the effectiveness of research capacity building (RCB)DiscussionThis article attempts to develop the debate on measuring RCB. It highlights that traditional outcomes of publications in peer reviewed journals and successful grant applications may be important outcomes to measure, but they may not address all the relevant issues to highlight progress, especially amongst novice researchers. They do not capture factors that contribute to developing an environment to support capacity development, or on measuring the usefulness or the 'social impact' of research, or on professional outcomes.The paper suggests a framework for planning change and measuring progress, based on six principles of RCB, which have been generated through the analysis of the literature, policy documents, empirical studies, and the experience of one Research and Development Support Unit in the UK. These principles are that RCB should: develop skills and confidence, support linkages and partnerships, ensure the research is 'close to practice', develop appropriate dissemination, invest in infrastructure, and build elements of sustainability and continuity. It is suggested that each principle operates at individual, team, organisation and supra-organisational levels. Some criteria for measuring progress are also given.SummaryThis paper highlights the need to identify ways of measuring RCB. It points out the limitations of current measurements that exist in the literature, and proposes a framework for measuring progress, which may form the basis of comparison of RCB activities. In this way it could contribute to establishing the effectiveness of these interventions, and establishing a knowledge base to inform the science of RCB.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care

2005

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A study looking at the effectiveness of research in local government has highlighted that over 50% of the participating authorities had research partnership arrangements including working with Primary Care Trusts, and that these organisations achieved higher performance standards than those that did not have such research partnerships (Local Government Association & Local Authorities Research and Intelligence Association 2005). Others have highlighted that working with the National Health Service offers RCD opportunities for those working in social care (Bacigalupo et al . 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research use and support needs, and research activity in social care: a cross-sectional survey in two councils with social services responsibilities in the UK

Cooke

Bacigalupo

Halladay

et al. 2008

Health &Amp; Social Care in the Community

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to investigate the level of research activity, research use, research interests and research skills in the social care workforce in two UK councils with social service responsibilities (CSSRs). A cross-sectional survey was conducted of the social care workforce in two CSSRs (n = 1512) in 2005. The sample was identified in partnership with the councils, and included employees with professional qualifications (social workers and occupational therapists); staff who have a role to assess, plan and monitor care; service managers; commissioners of services; and those involved with social care policy, information management and training. The survey achieved a response rate of 24% (n = 368). The Internet was reported as an effective source of research information; conversely, research-based guidelines were reported to have a low impact on practice. Significant differences were found in research use, by work location, and postgraduate training. Most respondents saw research as useful for practice (69%), and wanted to collaborate in research (68%), but only 11% were planning to do research within the next 12 months. Having a master's degree was associated with a greater desire to lead or collaborate in research. A range of research training needs, and the preferred modes of delivery were identified. Support to increase research activity includes protected time and mentorship. The study concludes that a range of mechanisms to make research available for the social care workforce needs to be in place to support evidence-informed practice. Continual professional development to a postgraduate level supports the use and production of evidence in the social care workforce, and promotes the development of a research culture. The term research is used to include service user consultations, needs assessment and service evaluation. The findings highlight a relatively large body of the social care workforce willing to collaborate and conduct research. Councils and research support systems need to be developed to utilise this relatively untapped potential.

show abstract

“…It is allowing me to fulfill a passion for pursuing evidence based practice that the pressures of full time work do not allow. (Physiotherapist, 2009) The program also provided mentoring and the opportunity to network with other researchers, something that is valued by researchers (Bacigalupo, Cooke, & Hawley, 2006 There are several limitations to this study. The response rate (42%) was not very high and there was a disparity between the response rates for NSW/ACT and the rest of the country.…”

Section: Demonstratementioning

confidence: 97%

“…The program provided protected time for research as indicated by the following. Lack of time has often been identified as a barrier to research (Bacigalupo, Cooke, & Hawley, 2006, Barnett et al 2005.…”

Section: Demonstratementioning

confidence: 99%

Researcher development program of the primary health care research, evaluation and development strategy

McIntyre

Brun

Cameron

2011

Aust. J. Prim. Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Research Development Program (RDP) was initiated in 2004 under the Primary Health CareResearch, Evaluation and Development (PHCRED) Strategy to increase the number and range of people with knowledge and skills in primary health care research and evaluation.RDP Fellows were invited to participate in an online survey about the effect the program had on their research knowledge, attitudes and practiceThe response rate was 42% (105/248). Most were female (88%) with 66% aged between 31 and 50 years. Over two thirds (72%) were health practitioners.Activities undertaken during the RDP ranged from literature reviews, developing a research question, preparing ethics submissions, attending and presenting at conferences and seminars, preparing papers and reports, and submitting grant applications.Despite the fact that only 52% agreed that the RDP time was adequate, 94% agreed that the RDP was a valuable experience, with 89% expressing interest in undertaking further research.These results indicate that this program has had a positive effect on the RDP Fellows in terms of their knowledge about research, their attitude to research, and the way they use research in their work.-3 - IntroductionIt is recognised that having a strong primary health care sector improves population health (Starfield et al. 2005). Primary health care research plays an important part in energising and validating the health care system (Stewart et al. 2010). This area of research, being relatively new, needs support to build the capacity of the workforce and the research methodology so that it becomes an independent and competitive field of research to provide a robust body of knowledge.Primary health care research and evaluation is vital in ensuring the quality and accountability of the primary health care sector (Farmer and Weston 2002). Internationally, a number of programs have been launched to increase research within the primary health care sector. For example, in Scotland, primary care research networks provided primary care practitioners with grants to buy time to undertake a research training course with a view to developing a research proposal (Hannay 2006). The UK has developed primary care research networks to provide avenues for diverse health practitioners to engage in research (Thomas et al. 2001). Canada has developed a national training program for primary health care practitioners that provide hands on research training as well as access to discussion groups and online workshops (Stewart et al. 2010). In the US a 10 week training program provided to doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) students was shown to increase the likelihood of students pursuing a research career path (Johnson et al. 2008).Indeed, practitioners who receive some form of research training are more likely to participate in future research (Ried et al. 2008) and are also more likely to publish their research (Brand et al. 2008). A study investigating why general practitioners became involved in a research project indicated that the practitioners were motivated b...

show abstract

Research activity, interest and skills in a health and social care setting, a snapshot of a primary care trust in northern England: implications for collaboration and capacity

Cited by 6 publications

References 5 publications

A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care

A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care

Research use and support needs, and research activity in social care: a cross-sectional survey in two councils with social services responsibilities in the UK

Researcher development program of the primary health care research, evaluation and development strategy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About