What influences allied health clinician participation in research in the public hospital setting: a qualitative theory-informed approach

Wenke, Rachel; Noble, Christy; Weir, Kelly A.; Mickan, Sharon

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036183

Cited by 28 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(76 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A lack of financial resources is consistent with the previously published literature [ 31 ], with healthcare organisations placing an increasing emphasis on efficiency of healthcare provision in the context of wider financial constraints and competing pressures [ 32 ]. To ensure resources are allocated to research training and support, AHP research needs to be embedded in the organisations wider vision and strategy [ 33 , 34 ]. Local RCB building strategies need to be designed to maximise efficient use of resources, and clearly support the organisations overall objectives.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring research capacity and culture of allied health professionals: a mixed methods evaluation

Cordrey

King

Pilkington

et al. 2022

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Despite the myriad benefits of research to patients, professionals, and organisations, fewer than 0.1% of the Allied Health Professions workforce are employed in clinical academic roles. Identified barriers include a lack of role modelling, management support, funding, and availability of clinical academic roles. Research capacity building is critical to improving Allied Health Professional research capability. The aim of this evaluation was to explore the current research capacity and culture of Allied Health Professionals to inform future tailored research capacity building strategies at a local level. Methods A mixed methods evaluation of research capacity and culture was conducted within the Allied Health Professions department of a large National Health Service Foundation Trust using an online research capacity and culture questionnaire, followed by focus groups. Staff were recruited using a purposive method with the questionnaire and subsequent focus groups completed between July and September 2020. Data from the questionnaire was analysed using simple descriptive statistics and after inductive coding, focus group data was analysed thematically. Results 93 out of 278 staff completed the questionnaire and 60 staff members attended seven focus groups. The research capacity and culture survey reported the department’s key strength as promoting clinical practice based on evidence (median=8, range=6-9). A key reported weakness of the department was insufficient resources to support staff research training (med=4, 3-6). Respondents considered themselves most skilled in finding relevant literature (med=6, 5-8) and least skilled at securing research funding (med=1, 1-2). Greater than half of the respondents (n=50) reported not currently being involved with research. Five themes were identified from the focus groups: empowerment; building research infrastructure; fostering research skills; access for all; and positive research culture. Conclusions Allied Health Professionals recognise the benefits of research at teams and departmental level, but marginally at an individual level. Local research capacity building strategies should aim to address the role, responsibilities and barriers to Allied Health Profession research development at an individual level. To ensure all staff can engage, research infrastructure and empowerment are essential.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring research capacity and culture of allied health professionals: a mixed methods evaluation

Cordrey

King

Pilkington

et al. 2022

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Frontline clinicians must feel capable of adding value to the research process. 16 Last, a recent regional survey of frontline clinician experience with research found that 31.5% of frontline clinicians did not "know how to get started." 17…”

Section: Barriers To Research Engagement For Frontline Cliniciansmentioning

confidence: 99%

Options for Meaningful Engagement in Clinical Research for Busy Frontline Clinicians

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order for health care innovations to be effective and actionable, they must align with the needs and practice patterns of those delivering care at the bedside. While research has started to incorporate the patient voice, it has yet to fully invest in the expertise of frontline clinicians. Frontline clinicians carry a wealth of clinical knowledge and the lived experience of providing realworld medical care that the research community seeks to improve. We consider options for clinicians as research stakeholders along a continuum of engagement as outlined by the UCSF Clinical and Translational Science Institute from minimal to supportive to participatory. In order to make an effective value proposition to support reallocation of clinician time to research engagement, we advocate evaluating the impact of clinicians as stakeholders at both the process level (e.g., clinician satisfaction, study recruitment rates) and endpoint level (e.g., clinical outcomes). Investing in clinicians as research stakeholders can offer benefits for the individual, health system, and population by increasing the generalizability, adoption, and sustainability of effective interventions.

show abstract

“…Key barriers include lack of knowledge and skills, lack of time, competing priorities of organizations, and lack of leadership endorsement (5,6,7). Important enablers include health care professionals' (HCPs) positive beliefs about the consequences of participation in training programs, combined with expert guidance and organizational support (8). HCPs want to provide the best care possible, but many lack the knowledge and skills to move evidence into practice in effective ways.…”

Section: Contributions To the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Building Capacity for Implementation – The KT Challenge

Black

Steinberg²,

Chisholm

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The KT Challenge program supports health care professionals to effectively implement evidence-based practices. Unlike other knowledge translation (KT) programs, this program is grounded in capacity building, focuses on health care professionals (HCPs), and uses a multi-component intervention. This study presents the evaluation of the KT Challenge program to assess the impact on uptake, KT capacity and practice change. MethodsThe evaluation used a mixed-methods, time-series design involving surveys and review of documents such as teams’ final reports. Online surveys collecting both quantitative and qualitative data were deployed at four time points (after both workshops, six months into implementation, and at the end of the two-year funded projects) to measure KT capacity ( knowledge, skills and confidence), and impact on practice change. Qualitative data was analyzed using a general inductive approach and quantitative data was analysed using non-parametric statistics. ResultsParticipants reported statistically significant increases in knowledge and confidence across both workshops, at the 6-month mark of their projects, and at the end of their projects. In addition, at the 6-month check-in, practitioners reported statistically significant improvements in their ability to implement practice changes. In the first cohort of the program, of the teams who were able to complete their projects, half were able to show demonstrable practice changes. ConclusionsThe KT Challenge was successful in improving the capacity of HCPs to implement evidence-based practice changes and has begun to show demonstrable improvements in a number of practice areas. The program is relevant to a variety of HCPs working in diverse practice settings and is relatively inexpensive to implement. Like all practice improvement programs in health care settings, a number of challenges emerged stemming from the high turnover of staff and the limited capacity of some practitioners to take on anything beyond direct patient care. Efforts to address these challenges have been added to subsequent cohorts of the KT Challenge program and ongoing evaluation will examine if they are successful. The KT Challenge program has continued to garner great interest among practitioners, even in the midst of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, and shows promise for organizations looking for better ways to mobilize knowledge to improve patient care and empower staff. This study contributes to the implementation science literature by providing a description and evaluation of a new model for embedding KT practice skills in health care settings.

show abstract

What influences allied health clinician participation in research in the public hospital setting: a qualitative theory-informed approach

Cited by 28 publications

References 38 publications

Exploring research capacity and culture of allied health professionals: a mixed methods evaluation

Exploring research capacity and culture of allied health professionals: a mixed methods evaluation

Options for Meaningful Engagement in Clinical Research for Busy Frontline Clinicians

Building Capacity for Implementation – The KT Challenge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About