Research-related knowledge, understanding and practice in public mental health: the voices of social workers and occupational therapists.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have explored facilitators and barriers to research conducted by allied health professionals in general medical settings. Since the mental health system is acknowledged to be significantly under-funded and more poorly functioning than general medical services, it is unclear whether the published facilitators and barriers also apply to mental health settings. This study sought to explore the research-related knowledge, understanding and practices of allied mental health clinicians based in a large public mental health service. METHODS: A mixed methods study recruited 59 occupational therapists and social workers working in a dedicated metropolitan public mental health service in Melbourne, Australia. Quantitative survey results are reported elsewhere. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 survey responder volunteers. Thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative survey and interview data. RESULTS: Four main themes were identified: research must connect with clinical practice; fragments of knowledge; research in practice; and research is not part of my professional identity. The third theme, research in practice, comprised four subthemes: no time for research in clinical roles, missing communication, lack of ownership, and what I need to do research. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that research and research-related activities were not considered part of the mental health social workers and occupational therapists' professional identities. Dealing with this issue may be instrumental to the realization of these clinicians' professional peak-body associations' code of practice and to government mandated practice standards. We provided several strategies to encourage both clinicians and services to view research-related activities as an everyday part of clinical roles. This is especially important if we think of allied health evidence-based practice requiring a reasonable level of research-related skills and/or competencies to appraise, practice, evaluate and adapt their evidence-based practice.

Enabling interdisciplinary research capacity for sustainable development: self-evaluation of the Blue Communities project in the UK and Southeast Asia.

Global challenges such as climate change, food security and human health and well-being disproportionately impact people from low-income countries. These challenges are complex and require an international and transdisciplinary approach to research, with research skills and expertise from different disciplines, sectors and regions. In addressing this, a key goal of the research project, Blue Communities, was to create and expand mutual interdisciplinary capacity of both United Kingdom and Southeast Asian Partners. An existing questionnaire on research capacity was uniquely adapted to include interdisciplinary and international aspects and distributed for the first time as an online survey to the participants of the Blue Communities project comprising researchers across all career stages. Participants were asked about their perceptions of the research capacity and culture of their organisation, team and self and whether they believed any aspects have changed since their involvement with the project. Greatest improvement was seen at the self-level where results indicated a positive relationship between an individual's current success or skill and their improvement over the course of the research project across 18 out of 22 aspects of research capacity for Southeast Asian, and two for UK respondents. The conflict between achieving research aims, building research capacity and making societal impact was evident. Institutional support is required to value these core aspects of interdisciplinary research.

Cobain, Hemingway, Sinatra and me.

A postdoc explains how being medicated for bipolar changed her life and the way she conducts research.

A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture.

Background: The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ' What does the evidence say about the 'problem' with 'poor' research culture, what are the benefits of 'good' research culture, and what does 'good' look like?' Aims: To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution. Methods: A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022. Results: 1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability. Conclusions: There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals' well-being, career progression and performance.

Wellcome's 2019 funding for PhD programme training: An experiment in enhancing research culture.

In September 2019, the results of Wellcome's call for proposals for PhD training programmes were announced. This funding call was notable for making contributions to positive research culture as important a selection criterion as scientific excellence in PhD training. Aware that it's intervention on enhancing research culture was experimental, Wellcome also commissioned work to reflect on its processes. I undertook two studies of the early phases of the funding call, of the Wellcome's internal processes in shaping and implementing the call, and of the experiences and reflections of all applicants to the call. This Open Letter is a summary of the cross cutting themes of these two studies: the difficulties of defining positive research culture and of balancing it with scientific excellence; the expectation that supervision of PhD students is a key way to effect research culture change; the need for coherence between funding calls; issues around evaluating the track records of programmes on research culture, which further feed into defining the criteria of evaluation and selection relating to research culture.

For some time, it has been widely acknowledged that the culture of scientific research is negative, some would even say 'toxic'. There are many factors contributing to negative research culture, many of them systemic or structural, rather than having to do with individual scientists. These factors can make it more difficult to behave in ways that get in the way of best practices in research (such as sharing data and collaborating) and easier to behave in ways that are detrimental to research and to the well being of the research community, such as being aggressively competitive. There are a great many issues that fall under research culture, from addressing bullying and harassment, all the way to open science and scientific integrity. In September 2019, 23 Wellcome funded PhD programmes were launched. These programmes had been funded in a call that for the first time put positive research culture on a par with scientific excellence. This was a bold and experimental intervention in the research system. Aware of this fact, Wellcome also commissioned two studies into the shaping and implementation of the call, and into the way it had been received by applicants to the call. This Open Letter summarises the main themes that cut across the two studies: the difficulties of defining positive research culture and of balancing it with scientific excellence; the expectation that supervision of PhD students is a key way to effect research culture change; the need for coherence between funding calls; issues around evaluating the track records of programmes on research culture, which further feed into defining the criteria of evaluation and selection relating to research culture.

Nurturing a positive research culture within your organization.

Positive research cultures provide the environment for scientists to explore ideas, grow as individuals, develop team science and create a positive impact on those around them. While positive research cultures need to grow from the kindness and integrity of team members, organization policy can either help or hinder this organic positive behavior. A focus on policies to enhance positive research culture can benefit even high-functioning organizations, by expanding and extending the benefits. Here we focus on key actionable areas to create and reinforce a positive research culture in your organization. We discuss the role of aligning staff recognition to the organization's missions, the influence of the organization unit and career structure on the research culture, the pyramid of building respectful interactions, the value of openness and transparency and the overarching goal of equality, diversity and inclusivity within the organization.

Mental Health Nurses' and Allied Health Professionals' Individual Research Capacity and Organizational Research Culture: A Comparative Study.

Introduction: Healthcare professionals have development needs related to their consumption, use, and practice of clinical research. Little is known about these issues in mental health services specifically. Objectives: A survey of healthcare staff working in an NHS Mental Health and Disability Trust in England was conducted to describe research capacity and culture compared with previously reported samples, and to examine subgroup differences. Methods: An online questionnaire was utilized. The main measure was the Research Capacity and Culture tool comprising measures of individual's perceived research skills and of team and organizational research culture. Previous studies using the same measure were systematically identified, and pooled results, weighted by sample size, were calculated. Analyses were descriptive (current sample versus previous results) and inferential (comparisons between demographic and professional groups within the current sample). Results: N = 293 people completed the survey. The median item scores were poorer than those of pooled samples from studies reporting median item scores on 39/51 (76.5%) occasions and poorer than those pooled samples of studies reporting mean item scores on 51/51 (100.0%) occasions. Individual capability for research was in the 'less than adequate' range more than in previous samples (71.4% vs. 42.9%). For team culture items, the proportions were 84.2% vs. 78.9%, while most responses about organizational culture were in the 'adequate' range (55.6% vs. 66.7%). Staff >20 years employment had poorer perceptions of team and organizational culture. Conclusion: Perceptions of individual research capacity and team and organizational culture were poor compared with previous studies, most of which were conducted in non-mental health settings. There is need for development of research capacity and culture in mental health services including opportunities to develop basic research skills through to strategic developments to promote clinical academic careers. There is considerable room for improvement in the way organizations support research and signpost opportunities.

Designing interview questions to find the right candidate.

Asking the right questions during a job interview helps you find the best person for your team. A well-crafted question will allow the applicants to shed light on their skills and their passion for science. Just as importantly, good interview questions can let you know about the applicants' support expectations and needs, and their approach to lab citizenship and research culture. Here we crowd-sourced the #ImmunologyFutures community for their go-to job interview questions, to help you find the right candidate for your position.

Understanding the value of a doctorate for allied health professionals in practice in the UK: a survey.

BACKGROUND: The need to transform the United Kingdom's (UK) delivery of health and care services to better meet population needs and expectations is well-established, as is the critical importance of research and innovation to drive those transformations. Allied health professionals (AHPs) represent a significant proportion of the healthcare workforce. Developing and expanding their skills and capabilities is fundamental to delivering new ways of working. However, career opportunities combining research and practice remain limited. This study explored the perceived utility and value of a doctorate to post-doctoral AHPs and how they experience bringing their research-related capabilities into practice environments. METHODS: With a broadly interpretivist design, a qualitatively oriented cross-sectional survey, with closed and open questions, was developed to enable frequency reporting while focusing on the significance and meaning participants attributed to the topic. Participants were recruited via professional networks and communities of practice. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse closed question responses, while combined framework and thematic analysis was applied to open question responses. RESULTS: Responses were received from 71 post-doctoral AHPs located across all four UK nations. Findings are discussed under four primary themes of utilisation of the doctorate; value of the doctorate; impact on career, and impact on self and support. Reference is also made at appropriate points to descriptive statistics summarising closed question responses. CONCLUSION: The findings clearly articulate variability of experiences amongst post-doctoral AHPs. Some were able to influence team and organisational research cultures, support the development of others and drive service improvement. The challenges, barriers and obstacles encountered by others reflect those that have been acknowledged for many years. Acknowledging them is important, but the conversation must move forward and generate positive action to ensure greater consistency in harnessing the benefits and value-added these practitioners bring. If system-wide transformation is the aim, it is inefficient to leave navigating challenges to individual creativity and tenacity or forward-thinking leaders and organisations. There is an urgent need for system-wide responses to more effectively, consistently and equitably enable career pathways combining research and practice for what is a substantial proportion of the UK healthcare workforce.

Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies.

Research Integrity (RI) is high on the agenda of both institutions and science policy. The European Union as well as national ministries of science have launched ambitious initiatives to combat misconduct and breaches of research integrity. Often, such initiatives entail attempts to regulate scientific behavior through guidelines that institutions and academic communities can use to more easily identify and deal with cases of misconduct. Rather than framing misconduct as a result of an information deficit, we instead conceptualize Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) as attempts by researchers to reconcile epistemic and social forms of uncertainty in knowledge production. Drawing on previous literature, we define epistemic uncertainty as the inherent intellectual unpredictability of scientific inquiry, while social uncertainty arises from the human-made conditions for scientific work. Our core argument-developed on the basis of 30 focus group interviews with researchers across different fields and European countries-is that breaches of research integrity can be understood as attempts to loosen overly tight coupling between the two forms of uncertainty. Our analytical approach is not meant to relativize or excuse misconduct, but rather to offer a more fine-grained perspective on what exactly it is that researchers want to accomplish by engaging in it. Based on the analysis, we conclude by proposing some concrete ways in which institutions and academic communities could try to reconcile epistemic and social uncertainties on a more collective level, thereby reducing incentives for researchers to engage in misconduct.

How we stepped up to support others.

From diagnosis and disclosure to leading change, two neurodivergent researchers recount their experiences setting up peer support networks at their universities.

Early career researchers in health policy and systems research: insights from freelancers in a non-profit organization in the Philippines.

BACKGROUND: The freelance economy has seen rapid growth worldwide in recent years and the Philippines is not an exception. Freelance workers are becoming increasingly common in healthcare and research. Early career researchers carry out most of scientific research and can play a critical role in advancing public health by bringing new perspectives and diversity to the field. Existing literature has mostly focused on the experiences of early career researchers in an institutional academic setting. This study aimed to understand the experiences of freelance early career researchers in the health policy and systems space in the Philippines. METHODS: This qualitative study collected data from 18 to 22 March 2022 through virtual interview and focus group discussions. Themes and codes were created based on the topic guide developed. New themes and codes were generated as they emerged. Two researchers coded the data using both a priori and emergent codes. Any coding conflicts were resolved through discussions until intercoder agreement was reached. Interpretation and conclusions from the data were developed by 2 researchers with consideration for its context and relationship between themes. RESULTS: Fifteen current and former freelance researchers participated in the study. Most are female, under 35 years old, and with an undergraduate degree as the highest educational attainment. The findings highlight insights and challenges faced by early career researchers in aspects of: (1) work arrangement, (2) tasks, (3) expectations from senior researchers, (4) development in the health policy and systems field, (5) relationship with peers, and (6) motivations for continuing to work as a freelance health policy and systems researcher. CONCLUSION: This study reveals the challenges freelance early career researchers face, highlighting the need for enhanced support and recognition amidst rapidly evolving workforce demands and complex health dilemmas. Recommendations include structured mentorship, professional development, innovative funding models, and the establishment of a supportive network. Advocacy for policies ensuring freelancer inclusion in the economy and policy-making is crucial. Future research should investigate their experiences further, including their roles, transitions, and the impacts of funding trends, to foster their development and integration into public health research and policy.

The meaning of a word.

A fraught exchange on social media leads a PhD student to reconsider how she conducts research on neuroinclusivity while being neurodivergent herself.

Mismatch in perceptions of the quality of supervision and research data management as an area of concern: Results from a university-wide survey of the research integrity culture at a Belgian university.

Researchers of KU Leuven, a large Belgian university, were invited to complete a bespoke questionnaire assessing their attitudes toward research integrity and the local research culture, with specific emphasis on the supervision of junior researchers. A total of 7,353 invitations were sent via e-mail and 1,866 responses were collected (25.3% response rate), of which 1,723 responses are reported upon here. Some of the findings are relevant to the broader research community. Whereas supervisors evaluated their supervision of junior researchers almost unanimously as positive, fewer supervisees evaluated it as such. Data management emerged as an area of concern, both in terms of reviewing raw data and of data storage. More female than male professors emphasized open communication and supported their supervisees' professional development and personal well-being. At the same time, fewer female professors felt safe to speak up than male professors. Finally, researchers who obtained their master's degree outside Europe evaluated their supervision and KU Leuven's research culture more positively than researchers with a master's degree from KU Leuven. The results of the survey were fed back to the university's board and several bodies and served as input to update the university's research policy. Faculties and departments received a detailed report.

Targeted action to increase inclusion at the Wellcome Sanger Institute.

The Sanger Excellence Fellowship has been established to increase the representation of researchers with Black-heritage backgrounds at a leading research centre in the UK.

Using reflective practice to support PhD students in the biosciences.

Postgraduate study can be mentally, physically and emotionally challenging. The levels of anxiety and depression in postgraduate students are much higher than those in the general population, and isolation can also be a problem, especially for students who are marginalised due to gender, race, sexuality, disability or being a first-generation and/or international student. These challenges are not new, but awareness of them has increased over the past decade, as have efforts by institutions to make students feel supported. Under the umbrella of a Doctoral Training Partnership, we developed a programme in which reflective practice is employed to help postgraduate students navigate work environments, deal with difficult supervisory or professional relationships, and improve their work-life balance. Additionally, this reflective practice is allowing the training partnership to tailor support to its students, enabling them to effectively nurture our next generation of bioscientists.

Outgrowing self-denial.

After hitting rock bottom a few months into a prestigious fellowship, a postdoc recounts how they found their way to ADHD medication, therapy, and better mental health.

The Luck of the Draw: Wellcome's Institutional Fund for Research Culture.

Wellcome's Institutional Fund for Research Culture (IFRC) closed call is an invite-only grant call in 2023. It is a departure from Wellcome's previous methods of institutional funding, providing institutions with up to £1m of grant funding to take on ambitious projects that advance research cultures and research environments that are equitable, diverse and supportive. Recognising the broad range of topics and ideas for advancing positive research cultures, IFRC is the first ever Wellcome-funding scheme to use partial randomisation to allocate funding. Applications were grouped by a funding committee into three categories (Gold, Silver and Bronze), with the applications selected for Gold being directly recommended for funding and all applications in the Silver group being set for funding by the randomiser. Applications grouped into Bronze were not funded. To ensure that this activity Wellcome's principles for openness and transparency, we have included the Python script for the call here. IFRC comes when efforts to fund positive and inclusive research cultures are mainstream. Similar efforts to support research culture activities at scale have come from the Research England Development (RED) Fund, and the next iteration of the Research Excellence Framework (REF 2028) will also mark 25% of the assessment criteria for people, culture and environment. IFRC was not designed with the national picture in mind but is a testament to Wellcome's values as an inclusive funder. The range of projects and geographies that IFRC will fund is exciting.Still, it also threw up several interesting social and philanthropic research questions we want to explore in future community-facing activities following the call. We hope that findings from IFRC projects become a valuable resource for institutions wishing to improve their research cultures and a catalyst for future change and discussion within the sector that makes academic careers more inclusive.

Enhancing research culture through PhD training: a systems approach to identifying leverage points for policy formation.

This article examines the role of PhD training programmes in identifying and implementing positive interventions in research culture in the biosciences. Using a data set consisting of transcripts from interviews and group discussions with 179 participants from 18 of the current 23 (78%) UK-based Wellcome-funded PhD programmes, we apply a systems theory methodology to the system of higher education and PhD training. Using system mapping as an investigative tool, this approach identifies points of leverage within the system where policy interventions might be best targeted to affect changes to research culture in the global higher education sector. The results of this investigation highlight the student-supervisor relationship as a nexus for these interventions and recommends the programme structure as a global policy for PhD training.

A survey of the training experiences and needs on Wellcome Trust PhD programmes.

Background: Training for PhD researchers was previously identified by the Wellcome Trust funded Emerging Research Cultures project as an area for further investigation to ensure an inclusive culture which enables PhD students to become well-rounded researchers. Methods: The Taskforce on Training conducted a survey of 35 Wellcome Trust-funded PhD students and 10 programme administrators to evaluate the provision of training in eight key areas. This survey examined a number of issues, such as availability and knowledge of training, potential gaps in training, and the perceived usefulness of training. Results: PhD students reported that training was generally useful and viewed as important; technical training in particular was highly valued. However, the survey identified that students desired additional training in project management and personal development. A survey of programme administrators highlighted the wide variety in training availability for students across several Wellcome Trust programmes currently run in the UK. Conclusion: In response to these findings, a number of recommendations were made. These included: promotion of peer mentoring for PhD students, and alternative methods for delivery of well-being training. However, this report only explores the views of a limited number of Wellcome Trust funded PhD students and would benefit from further research into the experiences of PhD students, programme administrators, and PhD supervisors.