What is the impact of research champions on integrating research in mental health clinical practice? A quasiexperimental study in South London, UK

Oduola, Sherifat; Wykes, Til; Robotham, Dan; Craig, Tom

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016107

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Champions in research settings are seen as invaluable 27. In this study, although some managers described challenges in appointing a Champion, generally our analysis suggested that they were very important in helping to ensure the engagement and commitment of care home staff.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Multifaceted intervention to Reduce Antimicrobial Prescribing in Care Homes: a process evaluation of a UK-based non-randomised feasibility study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo explore the facilitators and obstacles to the development and implementation of the Reduce Antimicrobial Prescribing in Care Homes intervention.DesignWe used a mixed-methods approach. We conducted focus groups with care home staff and relatives of residents, and interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and home managers, completed observational visits and collected demographic data, training attendance records and data on the use of a decision-making algorithm. We used normalisation process theory to inform topic guides and interpretation of the data.SettingSix care homes, three in Northern Ireland and three in the West Midlands, England.InterventionA decision-making algorithm for urinary tract, respiratory tract and skin and soft-tissue infections, plus small group interactive training for care home staff.ResultsWe ran 21 training sessions across the six homes and trained 35/42 (83%) of nurses and 101/219 (46%) of all care staff. Care home staff reported using the decision-making algorithm 81 times. Postimplementation, staff reported being more knowledgeable about antimicrobial resistance but were unsure if the intervention would change how GPs prescribed antimicrobials. The pressures of everyday work in some homes meant that engagement was challenging at times. Staff felt that some of the symptoms included in decision-making algorithm, despite being evidence based, were not easy to detect in residents with dementia or urinary incontinence. Some staff did not use the decision-making algorithm, noting that their own knowledge of the resident was more important.ConclusionWe delivered a training package to a substantial number of key staff in care homes. A decision-making algorithm for common infections in care homes empowered staff but was challenging to operationalise at times. A future study should consider the findings from the process evaluation to help ensure the successful implementation on a larger scale.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Multifaceted intervention to Reduce Antimicrobial Prescribing in Care Homes: a process evaluation of a UK-based non-randomised feasibility study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These reviews presented guidance for future studies, including the clinician or researcher being present to answer questions [20][21][22], seeking patient input into the consent materials [20], and using interactive features to aid comprehension [22]. Previous studies have found that 'research champions' are important to the recruitment and consent process [23,24].…”

Section: Recruitment Adaptationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from COVID-19 related trial adaptations to inform efficient trial design—a sequential mixed methods study

Chatters

Cooper

O’Cathain

et al. 2022

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Many clinical trial procedures were often undertaken in-person prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in adaptations to these procedures to enable trials to continue. The aim of this study was to understand whether the adaptations made to clinical trials by UK Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) during the pandemic have the potential to improve the efficiency of trials post-pandemic. Methods This was a mixed methods study, initially involving an online survey administered to all registered UK CTUs to identify studies that had made adaptations due to the pandemic. Representatives from selected studies were qualitatively interviewed to explore the adaptations made and their potential to improve the efficiency of future trials. A literature review was undertaken to locate published evidence concerning the investigated adaptations. The findings from the interviews were reviewed by a group of CTU and patient representatives within a workshop, where discussions focused on the potential of the adaptations to improve the efficiency of future trials. Results Forty studies were identified by the survey. Fourteen studies were selected and fifteen CTU staff were interviewed about the adaptations. The workshop included 15 CTU and 3 patient representatives. Adaptations were not seen as leading to direct efficiency savings for CTUs. However, three adaptations may have the potential to directly improve efficiencies for trial sites and participants beyond the pandemic: a split remote-first eligibility assessment, recruitment outside the NHS via a charity, and remote consent. There was a lack of published evidence to support the former two adaptations, however, remote consent is widely supported in the literature. Other identified adaptations may benefit by improving flexibility for the participant. Barriers to using these adaptations include the impact on scientific validity, limitations in the role of the CTU, and participant’s access to technology. Conclusions Three adaptations (a split remote-first eligibility assessment, recruitment outside the NHS via a charity, and remote consent) have the potential to improve clinical trials but only one (remote consent) is supported by evidence. These adaptations could be tested in future co-ordinated ‘studies within a trial’ (SWAT).

show abstract

“…A quasi-experimental study found that patients were nearly six times more likely to be approached about research participation in NHS community mental health teams where research champions were present, compared with community mental health teams where research champions were not present. 8 In the field of health visiting, research champions are reported to improve access to research for service users and bring benefits to the profession. 9 At a tertiary orthopaedic NHS hospital, research champions were part of team and clinical teams, particularly those clinical teams less engaged with research historically; encouraging a positive attitude towards research in the wider trust; embedding research as being valuable, essential and integral to routine clinical planning and practice (as opposed to research being perceived as an inessential, burdensome, optional add-on to practice); increasing participation in studies meeting eligibility criteria for National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) CRN support; 11 increasing the size, value and diversity of GHC's research portfolio, particularly in the fields of mental health and dementia; helping clinicians to talk to patients about research, and supporting GHC employees to plan and conduct their own research.…”

Section: The Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A qualitative evaluation of a research champions initiative in an NHS Trust

Hepburn¹,

Broomfield²,

Dowdeswell³

et al. 2022

Prog Neurol Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

What is the impact of research champions on integrating research in mental health clinical practice? A quasiexperimental study in South London, UK

Cited by 9 publications

References 22 publications

Multifaceted intervention to Reduce Antimicrobial Prescribing in Care Homes: a process evaluation of a UK-based non-randomised feasibility study

Multifaceted intervention to Reduce Antimicrobial Prescribing in Care Homes: a process evaluation of a UK-based non-randomised feasibility study

Learning from COVID-19 related trial adaptations to inform efficient trial design—a sequential mixed methods study

A qualitative evaluation of a research champions initiative in an NHS Trust

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About