Outcomes of a funding initiative to promote allied health research activity: a qualitative realist evaluation (original) (raw)
Related papers
Not enough time for research? Use of supported funding to promote allied health research activity
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
The current project evaluated the impact of a short-term, supported funding initiative that allowed staff from allied health (AH) professions to undertake research activity within rostered employment time. Specifically, the project will report on outcomes pertaining to individual research capacity, research output, and overall satisfaction with the initiative. Participants and methods: Sixteen AH clinicians (n=16) from six AH professions participated in the evaluation of the initiative, with data being collected within a service improvement framework. Clinicians received up to 4 weeks of protected time relieved from their clinical duties to undertake research activities, including writing for publication, undertaking a systematic review, data analysis, and preparation of ethics applications. An AH Research Fellow provided additional support and mentorship, including the development of an implementation plan. Evaluation included pre-post measures of individual research capacity using a 15-item self-report Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) survey, a post-implementation satisfaction survey, and monitoring of research output achieved. Results: Statistically significant improvements (p<0.05) were found on 14 out of 15 items on the RCC tool, with meaningful improvements in securing funding, analyzing qualitative data, writing for publication, literature searching skills, and providing advice to less experienced researchers. Overall satisfaction with the initiative was high, with positive comments from AH professionals (AHPs) regarding the initiative. Research output arising from the initiative included eleven manuscripts being submitted, with six currently in publication and others under review. Conclusion: The preliminary findings support the feasibility of implementing a local, clinical funding model to promote individual research capacity and research output for AHPs. The short-term funding should be supported by local mentorship and guidance. Local barriers and suggestions to optimize implementation, including integrating within existing research infrastructure and using flexible "backfill" options, will also be described.
Motivators, enablers, and barriers to building allied health research capacity
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 2012
Purpose: A sound, scientific base of high quality research is needed to inform service planning and decision making and enable improved policy and practice. However, some areas of health practice, particularly many of the allied health areas, are generally considered to have a low evidence base. In order to successfully build research capacity in allied health, a clearer understanding is required of what assists and encourages research as well as the barriers and challenges. Participants and methods: This study used written surveys to collect data relating to motivators, enablers, and barriers to research capacity building. Respondents were asked to answer questions relating to them as individuals and other questions relating to their team. Allied health professionals were recruited from multidisciplinary primary health care teams in Queensland Health. Eighty-five participants from ten healthcare teams completed a written version of the research capacity and culture survey.
BMC Family Practice, 2007
Background: General practitioners and other primary health care professionals are often the first point of contact for patients requiring health care. Identifying, understanding and linking current evidence to best practice can be challenging and requires at least a basic understanding of research principles and methodologies. However, not all primary health care professionals are trained in research or have research experience. With the aim of enhancing research skills and developing a research culture in primary health care, University Departments of General Practice and Rural Health have been supported since 2000 by the Australian Government funded 'Primary Health Care Research Evaluation and Development (PHCRED) Strategy'.
BMC health services research, 2017
Team-based approaches to research capacity building (RCB) may be an efficient means to promote allied health research participation and activity. In order to tailor such interventions, a clearer understanding of current patterns of research participation within allied health teams is needed. Different self-report measures exist which evaluate a team's research capacity and participation, as well as associated barriers and motivators. However, it remains unclear how such measures are associated with a team's actual research activity (e.g., journal publications, funding received). In response, this observational study aimed to identify the research activity, self-reported success, and motivations and barriers to undertaking research of eight allied health professional (AHP) teams and to explore whether any relationships exist between the self-reported measures and actual research activity within each team. A total of 95 AHPs from eight teams completed the research capacity and...
Allied health research positions: a qualitative evaluation of their impact
Health research policy and systems, 2017
Research positions embedded within healthcare settings have been identified as an enabler to allied health professional (AHP) research capacity; however, there is currently limited research formally evaluating their impact. In 2008, a Health Practitioner industrial agreement funded a research capacity building initiative within Queensland Health, Australia, which included 15 new allied health research positions. The present project used a qualitative and realist approach to explore the impact of these research positions, as well as the mechanisms which facilitated or hindered their success within their respective organisations. Forty-four AHP employees from six governmental health services in Queensland, Australia, participated in the study. Individual interviews were undertaken, with individuals in research positions (n = 8) and their reporting line managers (n = 8). Four stakeholder focus groups were also conducted with clinicians, team leaders and professional heads who had engag...
BMJ Open, 2020
Objectives Using theoretical frameworks from implementation science, we aimed to systematically explore the barriers and enablers to research active allied health professionals (AHP) participating and leading research in the hospital setting. Design A qualitative interview study informed by behaviour change theory. Setting Single Australian tertiary hospital and health service. Participants We recruited a convenience sample of 21 AHPs working within a hospital who were seeking to actively participate in/or lead research within their workplace. Data collection Semistructured interviews explored perceived barriers and enablers to research participation, informed by the 14 domains of the theoretical domains framework (TDF). Transcribed interviews were deductively coded and mapped to the TDF. A deeper level of inductive coding was used to identify emergent themes that influenced behaviour change, according to the three key constructs of: capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B). R...
Health Research Policy and Systems, 2016
Background: Public engagement (PE) has become a common feature of many liberal governmental agendas worldwide. Since the turn of this century there has been a succession of United Kingdom policy initiatives to encourage research funding agencies, universities and researchers to reconsider how they engage with citizens and communities. Although most funding agencies now explicitly promote PE within research, little empirical work has been carried out in this area. In this study, we explored why and how health and medical research funding agencies in the United Kingdom have interpreted and implemented their role to promote PE within research. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 30 key informants from 10 agencies that fund health or medical research. Data were also gathered from agencies' websites and documentation. The analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Results: Across agencies, we found that PE was being interpreted and operationalised in various different ways. The terminology used within funding agencies to describe PE seems to be flexibly applied. Disciplinary differences were evident both in the terminology used to describe PE and the drivers for PE highlighted by participantswith applied health science funders more aligned with participatory models of PE. Within the grant funding process PE was rarely systematically treated as a key component of research. In particular, PE was not routinely incorporated into the planning of funding calls. PE was more likely to be considered in the application and assessment phases, where it was largely appraised as a tool for enhancing science. Concerns were expressed regarding how to monitor and evaluate PE within research. Conclusions: This study suggests funding agencies working within specific areas of health and medicine can promote particular definitions of PE and aligned practices which determine the boundaries in which researchers working in these areas understand and practice PE. Our study also highlights how the research grant process works to privilege particular conceptions of PE and its purpose. Tensions are evident between some funders' core concepts of traditional science and PE, and they face challenges as they try to embed PE into long-standing systems that prioritise particular conceptions of 'scientific excellence' in research.
Introducing Research Initiatives into Healthcare: What Do Doctors Think?
Biopreservation and Biobanking, 2014
Background: Current national and international policies emphasize the need to develop research initiatives within our health care system. Institutional biobanking represents a modern, large-scale research initiative that is reliant upon the support of several aspects of the health care organization. This research project aims to explore doctors' views on the concept of institutional biobanking and to gain insight into the factors which impact the development of research initiatives within healthcare systems. Methods: Qualitative research study using semi-structured interviews. The research was conducted across two public teaching hospitals in Sydney, Australia where institutional biobanking was being introduced. Twentyfive participants were interviewed, of whom 21 were medical practitioners at the specialist trainee level or above in a specialty directly related to biobanking; four were key stakeholders responsible for the design and implementation of the biobanking initiative. Results: All participants strongly supported the concept of institutional biobanking. Participants highlighted the discordance between the doctors who work to establish the biobank (the contributors) and the researchers who use it (the consumers). Participants identified several barriers that limit the success of research initiatives in the hospital setting including: the 'resistance to change' culture; the difficulties in engaging health professionals in research initiatives; and the lack of incentives offered to doctors for their contribution. Doctors positively valued the opportunity to advise the implementation team, and felt that the initiative could benefit from their knowledge and expertise. Conclusion: Successful integration of research initiatives into hospitals requires early collaboration between the implementing team and the health care professionals to produce a plan that is sensitive to the needs of the health professionals and tailored to the hospital setting. Research initiatives must consider incentives that encourage doctors to adopt operational responsibility for hospital research initiatives.