Setting directions for capacity building in primary health care: a survey of a research network

Abstract

BackgroundThe South Australian Research Network 'SARNet' aims to build research capacity in primary health care, as part of a national government-funded strategy to integrate research into clinical practice. Internationally, research networks have been a fundamental part of research culture change, and a variety of network models exist. The 'SARNet' model uses a whole system, multidisciplinary approach to capacity building and supports individuals and groups. We undertook a descriptive baseline survey in order to understand the background and needs of SARNet members and to tailor network activities towards those needs.MethodsA questionnaire survey, assessing members' professional background, research experience, and interest in research development and training, was sent to all members who joined the network in its first year. The visual 'research spider' tool was used to ascertain members' experience in ten core research skills, as well as their interest in developing these skills. Individuals were asked to classify themselves into one of four categories of researchers, based on previous research experience. These self-assessment categories ranged from non-participant to academic.ResultsNetwork membership was diverse. Of the 89 survey participants, 55% were general practitioners or allied health professionals. Overall, most survey respondents indicated little to moderate experience in 7 out of the 10 skills depicted in the 'research spider'. In comparison, respondents were generally highly interested in developing their research skills in all areas. Respondents' research skills correlated significantly with their self-assessed category of research participation (Spearman rank correlation, r = 0.82, p < 0.0005). Correlations between research category and publication record (Gamma association, γ = 0.53, p < 0.0005) or funding record (Gamma association, γ = 0.62, p < 0.0005) supported the internal validity of the survey instrument.ConclusionLiterature describing evaluation of the impact of networks is scarce. Our survey questionnaire could provide a useful instrument for evaluation of both networks and capacity building initiatives. The survey including the 'research spider' tool provided valuable information about members' needs and interest in strategies to develop their research skills. Initial needs analyses as well as on-going evaluation of network activities are important to include into the business plans of research networks, in order to ensure the network's effectiveness and support of its membership.

Uncovering motivators and stumbling blocks: Exploring the clinical research experiences of speech-language pathologists

“…Therefore, engaging clinical SLPs as part of the research workforce is not a matter of merely stimulating interest levels, but also needing to address perceived organisational challenges and skill development. As Reid et al (2006) concluded after finding a similar pattern in primary healthcare workers, a global approach is required to build research capacity in the healthcare setting.…”

“…Other strategies that have been suggested to increase research capacity include encouraging SLPs to undertake research higher degrees (Finch et al, 2013;Iles & Davidson, 2006;MacEwan Dysart & Tomlin, 2002), establishing links with universities (Reid et al, 2006), creating allied health dedicated research positions in healthcare settings, and mentoring with more experienced colleagues (Queensland Government, 2013: Reid et al, 2006. Additional support could be achieved by establishing a local or national research special interest group for SLPs engaged in research activities to share their experiences with likeminded colleagues (Reid et al, 2006). Interestingly, many participants in the present study, both engaged and not engaged in research, were interested in participating in a research special interest group.…”

“…Without exception, these studies document that interest in conducting research is higher than respondents' self-rated research experience. Furthermore, the highest level of clinician confidence is reported in activities that align most closely with clinical duties, such as finding relevant literature (Finch et al, 2013;Queensland Government, 2013;Reid et al, 2006;Stephens et al, 2008).…”

“…Previous survey research of allied health professionals (including SLPs) (Finch et al, 2013;Queensland Government, 2013;Stephens, Taylor, & Leggat, 2008) and primary healthcare workers (Reid et al, 2006) working in clinical, non-research roles has focused on possession of research skills and interest. Without exception, these studies document that interest in conducting research is higher than respondents' self-rated research experience.…”

“…In Australia, some healthcare organisations have endeavoured to foster a culture of research generation through dedicated research positions and establishing partnership arrangements with major local universities (Queensland Government, 2012). However, the readiness of the clinical workforce to actively participate in research alongside these initiatives is dependent on two factors: (1) organisational structure (O'Connor & Pettigrew, 2009) (including time and funding constraints), and (2) interest and a skill set distinct from that required in clinical practice (Finch, Cornwell, Ward, & McPhail, 2013;Reid, Farmer, & Weston, 2006;Reid, Farmer, & Weston, 2007). EBP research has revealed that the workplace environment has been documented as a barrier to EBP implementation (O'Connor & Pettigrew, 2009), particularly with respect to a lack of time for research implementation (Jette et al, 2003;Nail-Chiwetalu & Bernstein Ratner, 2007;O'Connor & Pettigrew, 2009).…”