Development of a framework and research impact capture tool for nursing, midwifery, allied health professions, healthcare science, pharmacy and psychology (NMAHPPs).

BACKGROUND: There is an ambitious target to create a UK clinical academic workforce representing 1% of clinicians from nursing, midwifery, the allied health professions, healthcare science, pharmacy and psychology (NMAHPPs). Understanding and recording the impact that clinical academics make across healthcare services is crucial if we are to grow, value and support this highly skilled workforce group. However, it is currently difficult to systematically record, collate and report the impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. The aims of this project were to i) develop a framework outlining the impacts that were important for key stakeholder groups, and ii) create and pilot a research impact capture tool to record these impacts. METHODS: The framework was developed from the existing literature. It was refined, remodelled and approved by multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement, including patient and public representatives, healthcare managers and research-active clinicians. The framework was converted into a series of questions to create an electronic research impact capture tool, which was also refined through feedback from these stakeholder groups. The impact capture tool was piloted with research-active clinicians across a large NHS Trust and its associated organisations. RESULTS: The impact framework contained eight elements: clinical background, research and service improvement activities, research capacity building, research into practice, patients and service users, research dissemination, economics and research funding, and collaborations. Thirty individuals provided data for the research impact capture tool pilot (55% response rate). Respondents reported a range of positive impacts representing all elements of the framework. Importantly, research-activity appeared to be a key driver for recruitment and retention in the sample population. CONCLUSIONS: The impact capture tool is a feasible method of recording the breadth of impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. We encourage other organisations to collaboratively use and refine our impact capture tool, with the aim of standardising reporting, and facilitating discussions about research activity within clinical appraisal. Pooling and comparing data will also allow comparison between organisations, and assessment of change over time or after implementation of interventions aimed at supporting and increasing research activity.

Relative motion flexion following zone I-III flexor tendon repair: Concepts, evidence and practice.

STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review and case series. INTRODUCTION: The relative motion approach has been applied to rehabilitation following flexor tendon repair. Positioning the affected finger(s) in relatively more metacarpophalangeal joint flexion is hypothesized to reduce the tension through the repaired flexor digitorum profundus by the quadriga effect. It is also hypothesized that altered patterns of co-contraction and co-inhibition may further reduce flexor digitorum profundus tension, and confer protection to flexor digitorum superficialis. METHODS: We reviewed the existing literature to explore the rationale for using relative motion flexion orthoses as an early active mobilization strategy for patients after zone I-III flexor tendon repairs. We used this approach within our own clinic for the rehabilitation of a series of patients presenting with zone I-II flexor tendon repair. We collected routine clinical and patient reported outcome data. RESULTS: We report published outcomes of the clinical use of relative motion flexion orthoses with early active motion, implemented as the primary rehabilitation approach after zone I-III flexor digitorum repairs. We also report novel outcome data from 18 patients. DISCUSSION: We discuss our own experience of using relative motion flexion as a rehabilitation strategy following flexor tendon repair. We explore orthosis fabrication, rehabilitation exercises and functional hand use. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently limited evidence informing use of relative motion flexion orthoses following flexor tendon repair. We highlight key areas for future research and describe a current pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

What is a clinical academic? Qualitative interviews with healthcare managers, research-active nurses and other research-active healthcare professionals outside medicine.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore the concept of "clinical academic" from the perspectives of healthcare managers and research-active healthcare professionals outside medicine. BACKGROUND: Clinical academics are understood to be healthcare professionals who combine clinical and research responsibilities within their role. However, there is no agreed definition for this term either within or across nursing, midwifery and the other healthcare professions outside medicine. DESIGN: Qualitative service evaluation, reported using the COREQ checklist. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of eight healthcare managers and 12 research-active clinicians within a UK hospital group. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the Framework method. RESULTS: Clinical academics were described in four themes. Two themes explored the components of the role and the contribution of these individuals to their profession: combining clinical practice, research and education; and pushing boundaries. The third theme identified the clinical academic label as: a title that doesn't fit. The final theme examined a characteristic mindset of research-active clinicians. There were no clear differences in the perceptions of managers and research-active clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical academics were perceived as valuable members of their team and were able to push the boundaries to move their profession forward. Some research-active clinicians did not identify with the term "clinical academic" and for some managers and research-active clinicians, the term was viewed as jargonistic. A clear and accepted definition would aid development of clinical academic career pathways and identities. It would also assist in evaluating the impact of these roles. RELEVANCE TO PRACTICE: As clinical academic roles and opportunities are being developed across the professions outside medicine, it is important to have a shared common understanding of "clinical academic" to support the creation of career pathways and curricula, and to enable the evaluation of these roles.

A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis exploring the impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine.

BACKGROUND: There are increasing opportunities for healthcare professionals outside medicine to be involved in and lead clinical research. However, there are few roles within these professions that include time for research. In order to develop such roles, and evaluate effective use of this time, the range of impacts of this clinical academic activity need to be valued and understood by healthcare leaders and managers. To date, these impacts have not been comprehensively explored, but are suggested to extend beyond traditional quantitative impact metrics, such as publications, citations and funding awards. METHODS: Ten databases, four grey literature repositories and a naïve web search engine were systematically searched for articles reporting impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine. Specifically, this did not include the direct impacts of the research findings, rather the impacts of the research activity. All stages of the review were performed by a minimum of two reviewers and reported impacts were categorised qualitatively according to a modified VICTOR (making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research) framework. RESULTS: Of the initial 2704 identified articles, 20 were eligible for inclusion. Identified impacts were mapped to seven themes: impacts for patients; impacts for the service provision and workforce; impacts to research profile, culture and capacity; economic impacts; impacts on staff recruitment and retention; impacts to knowledge exchange; and impacts to the clinical academic. CONCLUSIONS: Several overlapping sub-themes were identified across the main themes. These included the challenges and benefits of balancing clinical and academic roles, the creation and implementation of new evidence, and the development of collaborations and networks. These may be key areas for organisations to explore when looking to support and increase academic activity among healthcare professionals outside medicine. The modified VICTOR tool is a useful starting point for individuals and organisations to record the impact of their research activity. Further work is needed to explore standardised methods of capturing research impact that address the full range of impacts identified in this systematic review and are specific to the context of clinical academics outside medicine.

Return to work after carpal tunnel release surgery: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common nerve compression disorder which affects hand sensation and function. Carpal tunnel release surgery (CTR) is frequently performed to alleviate these symptoms. For many CTR patients, surgery occurs during their working lifetime, but there is currently no evidence-based guidance to inform clinicians or patients when it might be safe to return to different types of work afterwards. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the return to work experiences of patients who had recently undergone CTR. METHODS: Semi-structured 1:1 interviews were conducted with a subgroup of participants recruited to a multi-centre prospective cohort study. Interviewees were purposely selected to represent a range of demographic, clinical and occupational characteristics. All had recently undergone CTR and had returned to work. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the framework method. Participants were recruited until data saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Fourteen participants were interviewed: 11 women (median age 49 years, range 27-61) and 3 men (age range 51-68 years). Three key themes were identified. Theme 1 centred on the level of functional disability experienced immediately after surgery. There was an expectation that CTR would be a 'minor' procedure, but this did not match the participants' experiences. Theme 2 explored the desire for validation for the time away from work, with participants recalling a need to justify their work absence to themselves as well as to their employers. Theme 3 focused on the participants' reflections of handing their return to work and function, with many reporting uncertainties about what constituted appropriate activity loads and durations. There was a desire for specific information relating to individual work roles. CONCLUSION: Individual return to work decision-making was largely influenced by the recommendations received. According to the views of participants, clinicians may be able to prepare patients better pre-operatively, especially with respect to function in the immediate post-operative period and by providing return to work guidance that can be tailored for individual work roles.

Factors influencing recruitment to research: qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of research teams.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting the required number of participants is vital to the success of clinical research and yet many studies fail to achieve their expected recruitment rate. Increasing research participation is a key agenda within the NHS and elsewhere, but the optimal methods of improving recruitment to clinical research remain elusive. The aim of this study was to identify the factors that researchers perceive as influential in the recruitment of participants to clinically focused research. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 individuals from three clinical research teams based in London. Sampling was a combination of convenience and purposive. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the framework method to identify key themes. RESULTS: Four themes were identified as influential to recruitment: infrastructure, nature of the research, recruiter characteristics and participant characteristics. The main reason individuals participate in clinical research was believed to be altruism, while logistical issues were considered important for those who declined. Suggestions to improve recruitment included reducing participant burden, providing support for individuals who do not speak English, and forming collaborations with primary care to improve the identification of, and access to, potentially eligible participants. CONCLUSIONS: Recruiting the target number of research participants was perceived as difficult, especially for clinical trials. New and diverse strategies to ensure that all potentially eligible patients are invited to participate may be beneficial and require further exploration in different settings. Establishing integrated clinical and academic teams with shared responsibilities for recruitment may also facilitate this process. Language barriers and long journey times were considered negative influences to recruitment; although more prominent, these issues are not unique to London and are likely to be important influences in other locations.

Supporting work participation for adults with hand and upper limb conditions: A survey of the British Association of hand therapists.

Introduction: Musculoskeletal disorders affect over a third of the UK adult population and are a common reason for sick leave from work. The aims of this study were to describe the reported provision of work participation support for adults with hand and upper limb conditions by UK hand therapists, and to identify potential training needs in this area. Methods: A previous survey of the Australian Hand Therapy Association was adapted for the UK. The electronic questionnaire was distributed to members of the British Association of Hand Therapists. Eligible individuals were UK-based occupational therapists or physiotherapists whose role included the assessment and/or treatment of patients ≥18 years with hand or upper limb issues. Results: There were 123 participants (17% response rate). The most frequently reported work participation interventions were discussing graded return to work and sign-posting patients to speak with their doctor. The Allied Health Professionals Health and Work Report and Fit Note were not regularly used, and respondents reported low levels of confidence in issuing these documents. Barriers to providing work recommendations included a perceived lack of time, skills, knowledge and training. Facilitators included the patient discussing work as a rehabilitation goal. Conclusion: Development opportunities for UK hand therapists include increasing patient awareness that they can ask for work-related advice and documentation, promoting existing health and work training, developing hand therapy-specific resources, and ensuring access to electronic Fit Notes. International opportunities include the continuation of this survey with a focus on generating exemplar work participation strategies to inform further research.

Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of finger goniometry measured from screenshots taken via video consultation.

The purpose of this study was to assess the intra- and inter-rater reliability of using screenshots and handheld manual goniometers to assess range of finger movements during video consultations. Twenty-seven hand therapists measured finger joint angles from four different screenshots using two different goniometers. Results were compared within and between participants using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The ICC grading for both intra- and inter-rater reliability was moderate to excellent for all joints and both goniometers. Clinicians can measure finger joint angles from a screenshot with good reliability. The protocol used in this study can be used in remote video consultations as a no-cost substitute for in-person goniometry.Level of evidence: II.

Driving, work, wound care and rehabilitation after carpal tunnel release: Consensus recommendations from a UK Delphi study.

Introduction: There is variability in the information available for patients after carpal tunnel release (CTR). We aimed to establish (i) what advice should be provided regarding return to driving after CTR; (ii) how work activities should be categorised and defined in relation to CTR, and when patients should be recommended to return to these activities; (iii) what wound care and rehabilitation advice should be provided after CTR. Methods: We developed consensus recommendations from an expert panel of hand surgeons, primary care surgeons and hand therapists using an electronic Delphi process. Participants were recruited from clinical organisations using pre-defined criteria. Delphi questionnaires included open text and tick-box responses. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and summary feedback was provided after each round. Results: There were 33 panellists (21 surgeons and 12 hand therapists), of which 27 (82%) completed all rounds. Expected return to driving was agreed as 5-14 days. Expected timescales were also agreed for return to seven selected occupational activities. Post-operative advice focused on using and moving the hand, rather than specific rehabilitation. While consensus was reached for most items, there were important areas of disagreement, including divergent views on driving with sutures in situ and the need to inform car insurers. Conclusion: Recommendations from this study expand on existing advice by including functional descriptors for occupational activities and guidance timescales generated through a formal consensus process. Areas where consensus was not reached warrant further exploration to assess whether different practices impact clinical and functional outcomes for patients.

Variation in patient information and rehabilitation regimens after flexor tendon repair in the United Kingdom.

Introduction: There is clinical uncertainty regarding the optimal method of rehabilitation following flexor tendon repair. Many splint designs and rehabilitation regimens are reported in the literature; however, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of any one regimen. The aim of this study was to describe rehabilitation guidelines used in the United Kingdom (UK) following zone I/II flexor tendon repair. Methods: Using a cross-sectional design, hand units in the UK were invited to complete a short survey and to upload their flexor tendon rehabilitation guidelines and patient information material. Approval was granted by the British Association of Hand Therapists. Data were extracted in duplicate, using a pre-piloted form, and analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: Thirty-five hand units responded (21%), providing 52 treatment guidelines. Three splinting regimens were described, and all involved early active mobilisation: (i) long dorsal-blocking splint (DBS); (ii) short DBS; and (iii) relative motion flexion splint. Duration of full-time splint wear ranged from 4 to 6 weeks. There were variations in splint design and composition of home exercise programmes, particularly for the long DBS. Where reported, recommended return to driving ranged from 8 to 12 weeks, and return to light work activities ranged from 5 to 10 weeks. Discussion: Treatment guidelines varied across UK hand therapy departments, suggesting that patients receive differing advice about how to protect, move and use their hand after zone I/II flexor tendon repair. The disparity in splint wear duration, home exercise frequency and prescribed functional restrictions raises potential financial and social implications for patients. Future research should explore rehabilitation burden in addition to clinical outcomes.

Reflections on contributing to health research: A qualitative interview study with research participants and patient advisors.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to explore individuals' experiences of contributing to health research and to identify the types of impact that are perceived as important by participants or patient and public advisors. Specifically, research led by NMAHPP clinicians (Nursing, Midwifery, Allied health professions, Healthcare science, Psychology and Pharmacy). METHODS: Semi-structured one-to-one interviews were conducted with health research participants and patient or public advisors. Interviewees were recruited from five UK sites and via social media. Interview transcripts were analysed using Thematic Analysis to identify key themes and areas of disagreement. RESULTS: Twenty-one interviews were completed, and four main themes were identified. The first, optimising research experiences, included personal reflections and broader recommendations to improve participant experiences. The second, connecting health research with healthcare, described research as key for the continued development of healthcare, but illustrated that communication between research teams, participants, and clinicians could be improved. The third theme explored the personal impacts of contributing to research, with interviewees recalling common positive experiences. The final theme discussed capturing research impacts. Interviewees highlighted potential priorities for different stakeholders, but emphasised that financial impacts should not be the sole factor. CONCLUSION: Individuals who were involved in NMAHPP health research recalled positive experiences and reported good relationships with their research teams. They felt that their contributions were valued. Suggested strategies to optimise the research experience focused on simplifying documentation, clear signposting of the research activities involved, and feedback on the research findings. Routine sharing of relevant research data with clinicians was also recommended. Personal impacts included a deeper understanding of their health condition or health more broadly, and increased confidence interacting with healthcare and other professionals. These findings will be used to inform development of a framework to capture the impact of NMAHPP research.

Would you like to be contacted about future research?

Many research participants are willing to be contacted about future research opportunities, however this question is not always asked. Furthermore, if participants do consent for contact about future research, this information is not always accessible to other research teams. We discuss our experience of recruiting individuals who have previously taken part in healthcare research and suggest potential strategies to support this process and enable greater research participation.

Impacts of clinical academic activity: qualitative interviews with healthcare managers and research-active nurses, midwives, allied health professionals and pharmacists.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the perceived impacts of clinical academic activity among the professions outside medicine. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interviews. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: There were two groups of interviewees: Research-active nurses, midwives, allied health professionals, healthcare scientists, psychologists and pharmacists (NMAHPPs) and managers of these professions. All participants were employed in a single, multisite healthcare organisation in the UK. ANALYSIS: Interview transcripts were analysed using the framework method to identify key themes, subthemes and areas of divergence. RESULTS: Four themes were identified. The first, cultural shifts, described the perceived improvements in the approach to patient care and research culture that were associated with clinical academic activity. The second theme explored visibility and included the positive reputation that clinical academics were identified as bringing to the organisation in contrast with perceived levels of invisibility and inaccessibility of these roles. The third theme identified the impacts of the clinical academic pathways, including the precarity of these roles. The final theme explored making impact tangible, and described interviewees' suggestions of possible methods to record and demonstrate impact. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived positive impacts of NMAHPP clinical academic activity focused on interlinked positive changes for patients and clinical teams. This included delivery of evidence-based healthcare, patient involvement in clinical decision making and improved staff recruitment and retention. However, the positive impacts of clinical academic activity often centred around individual clinicians and did not necessarily translate throughout the organisation. The current clinical academic pathway was identified as causing tension between the perceived value of clinical academic activity and the need to find sufficient staffing to cover clinical services.

Relative motion flexion splinting for the rehabilitation of flexor tendon repairs: A systematic review.

Introduction: Relative motion splinting has been used successfully in the treatment of extensor tendon repairs and has recently been applied in flexor tendon rehabilitation. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify articles reporting use of relative motion flexion (RMF) splinting following flexor tendon repair and to examine indications for use and clinical outcomes. Methods: Seven medical databases, four trials registries and three grey literature sources were systematically searched and screened against pre-specified eligibility criteria. Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were independently performed by two reviewers. Results: A total of 12 studies were identified, of which three met the review eligibility criteria: one retrospective case series; one cadaveric proof of concept study; and one ongoing prospective case series. The type of splint (including metacarpophalangeal joint position and available movement), exercise programme, and zone of tendon injury varied between studies. Both case series presented acceptable range of movement and grip strength outcomes. The prospective series reported one tendon rupture and two tenolysis procedures; the retrospective series reported no tendon ruptures or secondary surgeries. Discussion: We found limited evidence supporting the use of RMF splinting in the rehabilitation of zones I-III flexor tendon repairs. Further prospective research with larger patient cohorts is required to assess the clinical outcomes, patient reported outcomes and safety of RMF splinting in comparison to other regimes. Application of the relative motion principles to flexor tendon splinting varied across the included studies, and we suggest an operational definition of relative motion in this context.

Sickness absence after carpal tunnel release: a multicentre prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe when patients return to different types of work after elective carpal tunnel release (CTR) surgery and identify the factors associated with the duration of sickness absence. DESIGN: Multicentre prospective observational cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants were recruited preoperatively from 16 UK centres and clinical, occupational and demographic information were collected. Participants completed a weekly diary and questionnaires at four and 12 weeks postoperatively. OUTCOMES: The main outcome was duration of work absence from date of surgery to date of first return to work. RESULTS: 254 participants were enrolled in the study and 201 provided the follow-up data. Median duration of sickness absence was 20 days (range 1-99). Earlier return to work was associated with having surgery in primary care and a self-reported work role involving more than 4 hours of daily computer use. Being female and entitlement to more than a month of paid sick leave were both associated with longer work absences. The duration of work absence was strongly associated with the expected duration of leave, as reported by participants before surgery. Earlier return to work was not associated with poorer clinical outcomes reported 12 weeks after CTR. CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variation in the duration of work absence after CTR across all occupational categories. A combination of occupational, demographic and clinical factors was associated with the duration of work absence, illustrating the complexity of return to work decision making. However, preoperative expectations were strongly associated with the actual duration of leave. We found no evidence that earlier return to work was harmful. Clear, consistent advice from clinicians preoperatively setting expectations of a prompt return to work could reduce unnecessary sickness absence after CTR. To enable this, clinicians need evidence-informed guidance about appropriate timescales for the safe return to different types of work.

Sickness absence after carpal tunnel release: a systematic review of the literature.

Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of time to return to work (RTW) after carpal tunnel release (CTR), including return to different occupations and working patterns. Methods A systematic search from inception to 2016 was conducted using nine electronic databases, trial registries and grey literature repositories. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting RTW times after CTR were included. Study risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools. Time to RTW was summarized using median and range. Results A total of 56 relevant studies were identified: 18 randomized controlled trials and 38 observational studies. Only 4 studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. Reported RTW times ranged from 4-168 days. Few studies reported occupational information. Among 6 studies, median time to return to non-manual work was 21 days (range 7-41), compared with 39 days for manual work (range 18-101). Median time to return to modified or full duties was 23 days (ranges 12-50 and 17-64, respectively), as reported by 3 studies. There was no common method of defining, collecting or reporting RTW data. Conclusions This review highlights wide variation in reported RTW times after CTR. Whilst occupational factors may play a role, these were poorly reported, and there is currently limited evidence to inform individual patients of their expected duration of work absence after CTR. A standardized definition of RTW is needed, as well as an agreed method of collecting and reporting related data.

Return to work recommendations after carpal tunnel release: a survey of UK hand surgeons and hand therapists.

There is a limited evidence base from which to derive recommendations for safe and effective return to different types of occupation after carpal tunnel release surgery. The current practice of members of the British Society for Surgery of the Hand and the British Association of Hand Therapists was investigated with a questionnaire. In total, 173 surgeons and 137 therapists responded from an estimated sample of 1959. Median recommended return-to-work times were 7 days for desk-based duties, 15 days for repetitive light manual duties and 30 days for heavy manual duties. However, the responses were wide-ranging: 0-30 days for desk-based; 1-56 days for repetitive light manual; and 1-90 days for heavy manual. Variation in the recommended timescales for return to work and other functional activities after carpal tunnel release suggests that patients are receiving different and possibly even conflicting advice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.

Carpal tunnel syndrome and work.

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common peripheral nerve entrapment syndrome, and it frequently presents in working-aged adults. Its mild form causes 'nuisance' symptoms including dysaesthesia and nocturnal waking. At its most severe, CTS can significantly impair motor function and weaken pinch grip. This review discusses the anatomy of the carpal tunnel and the clinical presentation of the syndrome as well as the classification and diagnosis of the condition. CTS has a profile of well-established risk factors including individual factors and predisposing co-morbidities, which are briefly discussed. There is a growing body of evidence for an association between CTS and various occupational factors, which is also explored. Management of CTS, conservative and surgical, is described. Finally, the issue of safe return to work post carpal tunnel release surgery and the lack of evidence-based guidelines are discussed.

Researchers' and clinicians' perceptions of recruiting participants to clinical research: a thematic meta-synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting the desired number of research participants is frequently problematic with resulting financial and clinical implications. The views of individuals responsible for participant recruitment have not been previously reviewed. This systematic review and thematic meta-synthesis explores researchers' and clinicians' experiences and perceptions of recruiting participants to clinical research, with the aim of informing improved recruitment systems and strategies. METHODS: Studies published between January 1995 and May 2013 were identified from: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PSYCHINFO, ASSIA, British Nursing Index, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and PubMed. Included studies were original peer reviewed research, with qualitative methodologies and an aim of exploring the views of clinicians and/or researchers on recruitment to clinical research. Studies discussing the recruitment of patients unable to give informed consent were excluded. The findings sections of the relevant studies were free coded to identify key concepts which were grouped into hierarchical themes. The quality of the identified studies was assessed and the relative contribution of each paper was checked to ensure individual studies did not dominate in any theme. RESULTS: Eighteen relevant papers were identified which examined the views of researchers and clinicians in 10 clinical specialties. Five main themes emerged: building a research community, securing resources, the nature of research, professional identities and recruitment strategies. The views of researchers and clinicians were similar, although the role of 'researcher' was inconsistently defined. CONCLUSIONS: The general experience of recruiting participants to clinical research was one of competition and compromise. Competition arose over funding, staffing and participants, and between clinical and research responsibilities. Compromise was needed to create study designs that were acceptable to patients, clinicians and researchers. Forging relationships between clinical and research teams featured extensively, however the involvement of patients and the public within the research community was rarely discussed.