Efficacy of Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (CoBRE) grants to build research capacity in underrepresented states.

Federal funding for research has immediate and long-term economic impact. Since federal research funding is regionally concentrated and not geographically distributed, the benefits are not fully realized in some regions of the country. The Established (previously Experimental) Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) programs at several agencies, for example, the National Science Foundation, and the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) program at the National Institutes of Health were created to increase competitiveness for funding in states with historically low levels of federal funding. The Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (CoBRE) award program is a component of the IDeA program. The CoBRE grants support research core facilities to develop research infrastructure. These grants also support the research projects of junior investigators, under the guidance of mentoring teams of senior investigators, to develop human resources at these institutions. Few studies have assessed the effectiveness of these programs. This study examines the investment and outcomes of the CoBRE grants from 2000 through 2022. The maturation of junior investigators into independently funded principal investigators is comparable to other mentoring programs supported by NIH. The investment in research cores resulted in substantial research productivity, measured by publications. Despite the successes of individual investigators and increased research infrastructure and productivity, the geographic distribution of federal and NIH research dollars has not changed. These results will be informative in consideration of policies designed to enhance the geographic distribution of federal research dollars.

Harnessing peer mentorship as a tool to turn human resource for health brain drain into brain gain: a case study of a Nigerian peer-mentored research group.

BACKGROUND: Peer mentorship can be a potential tool to reduce the disparities in health research capacity between high- and low- and middle-income countries. This case study describes the potential of peer mentorship to tackle two critical issues: bridging health research capacity of doctors from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and the transformation of human resource for health brain drain into "brain gain". CASE PRESENTATION: In 2021, a virtual peer mentorship group was established by 16 alumni of the University of Benin College of Medical Sciences' 2008 graduating class, residing across three continents. This program aimed to facilitate research collaboration and skill development among colleagues with diverse research experience levels, fostering a supportive environment for career development in research. The group relied heavily on digital technology to carry out its activities due to the different geographical locations of the group members. Led by experienced peer leaders, the group fostered a collaborative learning environment where members leveraged each other's expertise. Within 18 months, we published two research papers in high-impact peer-reviewed global health journals, launched a mixed-methods research study, and conducted training sessions on research design and implementation. Findings from our work were presented at conferences and workshops. However, logistical hurdles, competing priorities, structural constraints, and uneven participation presented challenges. CONCLUSION: The peer mentorship collaboration has achieved some successes so far, and this model can be emulated by other cohorts of medical professionals across LMICs. Despite the group's success at a micro- or individual level, there remain significant structural barriers to research capacity building in LMICs that can only be addressed at the meso- and macro-levels by institutions and government, respectively. A systems-level approach is required to develop and support research capacity building and foster global research collaboration and effectively turn brain drain into brain gain.

The research activities of Ontario's large community hospitals: an updated scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Community hospitals provide the majority of patient care in Canada but traditionally do not participate in clinical research. The disconnect between where most patients receive their health care and where health research is conducted leads to decreased study recruitment, reduced generalizability of study results, and inequitable patient access to novel therapies. A scoping review of the research activities of Ontario's large community hospitals (LCHs) between 2013 and 2015 reported an annualized output of 266 publications. In the last decade, efforts have been made to engage more community hospitals in research. In this updated scoping review, we provide a snapshot of the research activities of Ontario's LCHs between 2016 and 2022, describing the number and type of research publications as well as the frequency of collaboration within and between LCHs. METHODS: Three medical databases (PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL) were searched for publications that included at least one author affiliated with one of Ontario's 47 LCHs, and for which the topic was hospital or health related. Screening and extraction occurred concurrently. RESULTS: We identified 3,719 publications from 2016 to 22 with at least one Ontario LCH-affiliated author, representing an annualized output of 531 publications. The most frequent publication type was observational study (n = 1,654; 45%), quality improvement (n = 355; 10%), systematic reviews (n = 352; 9%) and randomized controlled trials (n = 325; 9%). The most common disciplines were outpatient care (n = 1,144; 31%), health systems research (n = 806; 22%), inpatient care (n = 437; 12%) and surgery (n = 403; 11%). LCH-affiliated first authors were identified in 997 (27%) publications, representing 755 unique authors, while LCH-affiliated senior authors were identified in 962 (26%) publications, representing 583 unique authors. Among the 1,565 studies with an LCH-affiliated first or senior author, 574 (37%) included collaborators from the same LCH and 86 (5%) included collaborators from other Ontario LCHs. CONCLUSIONS: Health research by LCH-affiliated clinicians and researchers increased significantly in 2016-2022 relative to 2013-2015. Participation in randomized controlled trials however, remains low, suggesting that further efforts are required to build clinical research infrastructure in LCHs.

A national program to advance dementia research in Vietnam.

BACKGROUND: As Vietnam and other low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) experience a rapid increase in the number of people living with dementia, an acute need exists to strengthen research capacity to inform policy, improve care and support, and develop national dementia plans. We describe the development and early outcomes of an National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute on Aging (NIA)-funded national dementia research capacity building program in Vietnam. METHODS: The research capacity building program commenced in 2019 and has three components: (1) Vietnam Alzheimer's and other dementias research Network (VAN), (2) a mentored pilot grant program, and (3) research training, networking, and dissemination activities. The pilot grant program funds Vietnamese researchers for one to two years to conduct research focusing on Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease Related Dementias (AD/ADRD). Grants are reviewed and scored using NIH criteria, and priority is given to pilot grants with policy relevance and potential for future funding. An international pool of high-income country (e.g., United States, Australia, and United Kingdom) mentors has been engaged and mentors paired with each funded project. Training and networking activities include workshops on AD/ADRD research topics and regular meetings in conjunction with Vietnam's annual national dementia/geriatric conferences. Dissemination is facilitated through targeted outreach and the creation of a national network of institutions. RESULTS: Over four years (2019-2023), we received 62 applications, reviewed 58 applications, and funded 21 projects (4-5 per year). Funded investigators were from diverse disciplines and institutions across Vietnam with projects on a range of topics, including biomarkers, prevention, diagnosis, neuropsychological assessment, family caregiver support, dementia education, and clinical trials. A network of 12 leading academic and research institutions nationwide has been created to facilitate dissemination. Six research training workshops have been organized and included presentations from international speakers. Grantees have published or presented their studies at both national and international levels. The mentoring program has helped grantees to build their research skills and expand their research network. CONCLUSION: This research capacity building program is the first of its kind in Vietnam and may serve as a useful model for other LMIC.

The health service perspective on determinants of success in allied health student research project collaborations: a qualitative study guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

BACKGROUND: A research culture in health care organisations is associated with improved healthcare performance. Allied health (AH) students undertake research training as part of their professional degree qualifications. This may include participation in research projects, sometimes undertaken in association with health services. Co-supervision of these projects by health service staff provides research capacity building opportunities and staff-centred outcomes for the individuals involved, as well as improvements in clinical knowledge and practice within the local area. Also, publications from these projects contribute to the wider evidence base. Identification of barriers and facilitators to engagement in, and conduct of, these projects may optimise systems for improved health service outcomes. METHODS: This formative evaluation used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide analysis of qualitative data obtained from semi-structured interviews with health service-employed allied health professionals, including clinicians and research fellows, who had supervised students on clinical-related research placements within the previous five years. RESULTS: Eleven AH clinicians described 18 collaborative projects with 24 students from five AH disciplines across four universities. Three health service-employed AH research fellows described their involvement in these and other student research projects. Twenty key determinant constructs were identified and mapped across all five CFIR domains. Facilitators included health service cosmopolitanism, project adaptability and implementation climate (compatibility). Health service-employed research fellows provided readiness for implementation and a facilitator for project execution. The main barriers identified were cost to staff in workload and personal time and aspects related to project complexity. Differing student characteristics affected the relative advantage of collaborative projects in positive and negative manners. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the facilitators and barriers to the conduct of collaborative AH student research projects. Addressing these determinants when establishing each new project may enable health services to optimise communication, role delineation and project success, and thus ultimately, healthcare performance and patient care.

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.

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.

Factors influencing the research impact in cancer research: a collaboration and knowledge network analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a major public health challenge globally. However, little is known about the evolution patterns of cancer research communities and the influencing factors of their research capacity and impact, which is affected not only by the social networks established through research collaboration but also by the knowledge networks in which the research projects are embedded. METHODS: The focus of this study was narrowed to a specific topic - 'synthetic lethality' - in cancer research. This field has seen vibrant growth and multidisciplinary collaboration in the past decade. Multi-level collaboration and knowledge networks were established and analysed on the basis of bibliometric data from 'synthetic lethality'-related cancer research papers. Negative binomial regression analysis was further applied to explore how node attributes within these networks, along with other potential factors, affected paper citations, which are widely accepted as proxies for assessing research capacity and impact. RESULTS: Our study revealed that the synthetic lethality-based cancer research field is characterized by a knowledge network with high integration, alongside a collaboration network exhibiting some clustering. We found significant correlations between certain factors and citation counts. Specifically, a leading status within the nation-level international collaboration network and industry involvement were both found to be significantly related to higher citations. In the individual-level collaboration networks, lead authors' degree centrality has an inverted U-shaped relationship with citations, while their structural holes exhibit a positive and significant effect. Within the knowledge network, however, only measures of structural holes have a positive and significant effect on the number of citations. CONCLUSIONS: To enhance cancer research capacity and impact, non-leading countries should take measures to enhance their international collaboration status. For early career researchers, increasing the number of collaborators seems to be more effective. University-industry cooperation should also be encouraged, enhancing the integration of human resources, technology, funding, research platforms and medical resources. Insights gained through this study also provide recommendations to researchers or administrators in designing future research directions from a knowledge network perspective. Focusing on unique issues especially interdisciplinary fields will improve output and influence their research work.

Unravelling the complexity of research capacity strengthening for health professionals in low- and middle-income countries: A concept analysis.

AIMS: Research capacity strengthening (RCS) is crucial in enhancing healthcare outcomes, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), which face challenges due to limited resources, unequal access to care and the need for evidence-based decision-making. We seek to move beyond a surface-level understanding of RCS, unearthing the core attributes, the factors that precede its implementation and the transformative outcomes it generates within the LMIC healthcare landscape. DESIGN: This study employs the Walker and Avant approach to concept analysis to comprehensively explore the dimensions and attributes of RCS as it pertains to allied and public health professionals in LMICs, propose empirical referents and suggest an operational definition. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to 27 July 2023, to identify studies on RCS in LMICs. The Walker and Avant approach to concept analysis was selected because it provides a framework for systematically examining and clarifying the meaning and implications of RCS. This method involves a structured process of defining RCS, identifying its attributes, antecedents, consequences and cases, and ultimately providing a clear understanding of its meaning and implications. Identifying empirical referents offers measurable indicators that researchers and policymakers can use to assess the effectiveness of RCS initiatives in LMICs. CONCLUSION: RCS for health professionals in LMICs involves a sustainable process that equips them with essential research skills, fostering the ability to conduct high-quality research and improve healthcare delivery in resource-constrained settings. IMPLICATIONS: RCS aims to empower health professionals to apply evidence-based practices, reduce disparities and enhance the well-being of populations in LMICs. IMPACT: Ultimately, a concept analysis of RCS empowers us to harness the full potential of research to enhance healthcare delivery, improve patient outcomes and advance the well-being of populations worldwide.

Going virtual: mixed methods evaluation of online versus in-person learning in the NIH mixed methods research training program retreat.

BACKGROUND: Despite the central role of mixed methods in health research, studies evaluating online methods training in the health sciences are nonexistent. The focused goal was to evaluate online training by comparing the self-rated skills of scholars who experienced an in-person retreat to scholars in an online retreat in specific domains of mixed methods research for the health sciences from 2015-2023. METHODS: The authors administered a scholar Mixed Methods Skills Self-Assessment instrument based on an educational competency scale that included domains on: "research questions," "design/approach," "sampling," "analysis," and "dissemination" to participants of the Mixed Methods Research Training Program for the Health Sciences (MMRTP). Self-ratings on confidence on domains were compared before and after retreat participation within cohorts who attended in person (n = 73) or online (n = 57) as well as comparing across in-person to online cohorts. Responses to open-ended questions about experiences with the retreat were analyzed. RESULTS: Scholars in an interactive program to improve mixed methods skills reported significantly increased confidence in ability to define or explain concepts and in ability to apply the concepts to practical problems, whether the program was attended in-person or synchronously online. Scholars in the online retreat had self-rated skill improvements as good or better than scholars who participated in person. With the possible exception of networking, scholars found the online format was associated with advantages such as accessibility and reduced burden of travel and finding childcare. No differences in difficulty of learning concepts was described. CONCLUSIONS: Keeping in mind that the retreat is only one component of the MMRTP, this study provides evidence that mixed methods training online was associated with the same increases in self-rated skills as persons attending online and can be a key component to increasing the capacity for mixed methods research in the health sciences.

Evaluating the perceived impact and legacy of master's degree level research in the allied health professions: a UK-wide cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Post graduate master's degree qualifications are increasingly required to advance allied health profession careers in education, clinical practice, leadership, and research. Successful awards are dependent on completion of a research dissertation project. Despite the high volume of experience gained and research undertaken at this level, the benefits and impact are not well understood. Our study aimed to evaluate the perceived impact and legacy of master's degree training and research on allied health profession practice and research activity. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey design was used to collect data from allied health professionals working in the United Kingdom who had completed a postgraduate master's degree. Participants were recruited voluntarily using social media and clinical interest group advertisement. Data was collected between October and December 2022 and was analysed using descriptive statistics and narrative content analysis. Informed consent was gained, and the study was approved by the university research ethics committee. RESULTS: Eighty-four responses were received from nine allied health professions with paramedics and physiotherapists forming the majority (57%) of respondents. Primary motivation for completion of the master's degree was for clinical career progression (n = 44, 52.4%) and formation of the research dissertation question was predominantly sourced from individual ideas (n = 58, 69%). Formal research output was low with 27.4% (n = 23) of projects published in peer reviewed journal and a third of projects reporting no output or dissemination at all. Perceived impact was rated highest in individual learning outcomes, such as improving confidence and capability in clinical practice and research skills. Ongoing research engagement and activity was high with over two thirds (n = 57, 67.9%) involved in formal research projects. CONCLUSION: The focus of master's degree level research was largely self-generated with the highest perceived impact on individual outcomes rather than broader clinical service and organisation influence. Formal output from master's research was low, but ongoing research engagement and activity was high suggesting master's degree training is an under-recognised source for AHP research capacity building. Future research should investigate the potential benefits of better coordinated and prioritised research at master's degree level on professional and organisational impact.

Evaluating the impact of the supporting the advancement of research skills (STARS) programme on research knowledge, engagement and capacity-building in a health and social care organisation in England.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact a novel education programme - to improve research engagement, awareness, understanding and confidence - had on a diverse health and social care workforce. Barriers and facilitators to engagement were explored together with research capacity-building opportunities and ways to embed a research culture. The programme is entitled 'Supporting The Advancement of Research Skills' (STARS programme); the paper reports findings from a health and social care setting in England, UK. METHODS: A four-level outcome framework guided the approach to evaluation and was further informed by key principles of research capacity development and relevant theory. Quantitative data were collected from learners before and after engagement; these were analysed descriptively. Semi-structured online interviews were conducted with learners and analysed thematically. A purposive sample was achieved to include a diversity in age, gender, health and social care profession, and level of attendance (regular attendees, moderate attendees and non-attenders). RESULTS: The evaluation spanned 18 half-day workshops and 11 seminars delivered by expert educators. 165 (2% of total staff at Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust (MPFT)) staffs booked one or more education sessions; 128 (77%) including Allied Health Professionals (AHPs), psychologists, nursing and midwifery, and social workers attended one or more session. Key themes of engagement with teaching sessions, relevance and impact of training and promoting a research active environment were identified with relevant sub-themes. Positive impacts of training were described in terms of research confidence, intentions, career planning and application of research skills as a direct result of training. Lack of dedicated time for research engagement, work pressures and time commitments required for the programme were key barriers. Facilitators that facilitated engagement are also described. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate the impact that a free, virtual and high-quality research education programme had at individual and organisational levels. The programme is the product of a successful collaboration between health and social care and academic organisations; this provides a useful framework for others to adapt and adopt. Key barriers to attendance and engagement spoke to system-wide challenges that an education programme could not address in the short-term. Potential solutions are discussed in relation to protecting staff time, achieving management buy-in, recognising research champions, and having a clear communication strategy.

Research capacity and culture among hand therapists in Australia: A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Identifying the factors influencing engagement in research capacity and culture (RCC) in hand therapy practice is essential to inform strategies to support contributions to high-quality research and its implementation in clinical practice. However, the RCC of clinicians providing hand therapy services in Australia has not been investigated. PURPOSE: This study aimed to measure RCC among hand therapists in Australia to identify perceived barriers, motivators, and skills related to undertaking research. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: All Australian Hand Therapy Association members were invited to complete the RCC tool, which includes three domains: i) individual, ii) professional group (team), and iii) organization. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two therapists (13.6% response rate) completed the survey. Survey findings indicate that the RCC of hand therapists in Australia is relatively low across all RCC domains, with scores on these items being either moderate or low. The findings from this study suggest that the areas or skills that respondents felt most confident with were more closely aligned to the clinical skills required as evidence-based practitioners, compared to other skills more closely aligned with the clinician-researchers, such as data analysis or writing proposals. CONCLUSIONS: Hand therapists in Australia may not possess the research experience or skills required to confidently complete a range of research-related activities. Future support strategies should focus on improving hand therapist knowledge and confidence regarding common research tasks and provide funding and mentoring for additional hand therapist clinician-researcher roles.

Research capacity, motivators and barriers to conducting research among healthcare providers in Tanzania's public health system: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Building health research capacity in low- and middle-income countries is essential to achieving universal access to safe, high-quality healthcare. It can enable healthcare workers to conduct locally relevant research and apply findings to strengthen their health delivery systems. However, lack of funding, experience, know-how, and weak research infrastructures hinders their ability. Understanding research capacity, engagement, and contextual factors that either promote or obstruct research efforts by healthcare workers can inform national strategies aimed at building research capacity. METHODS: We used a convergent mixed-methods study design to understand research capacity and research engagement of healthcare workers in Tanzania's public health system, including the barriers, motivators, and facilitators to conducting research. Our sample included 462 randomly selected healthcare workers from 45 facilities. We conducted surveys and interviews to capture data in five categories: (1) healthcare workers research capacity; (2) research engagement; (3) barriers, motivators, and facilitators; (4) interest in conducting research; and (5) institutional research capacity. We assessed quantitative and qualitative data using frequency and thematic analysis, respectively; we merged the data to identify recurring and unifying concepts. RESULTS: Respondents reported low experience and confidence in quantitative (34% and 28.7%, respectively) and qualitative research methods (34.5% and 19.6%, respectively). Less than half (44%) of healthcare workers engaged in research. Engagement in research was positively associated with: working at a District Hospital or above (p = 0.006), having a university degree or more (p = 0.007), and previous research experience (p = 0.001); it was negatively associated with female sex (p = 0.033). Barriers to conducting research included lack of research funding, time, skills, opportunities to practice, and research infrastructure. Motivators and facilitators included a desire to address health problems, professional development, and local and international collaborations. Almost all healthcare workers (92%) indicated interest in building their research capacity. CONCLUSION: Individual and institutional research capacity and engagement among healthcare workers in Tanzania is low, despite high interest for capacity building. We propose a fourfold pathway for building research capacity in Tanzania through (1) high-quality research training and mentorship; (2) strengthening research infrastructure, funding, and coordination; (3) implementing policies and strategies that stimulate engagement; and (4) strengthening local and international collaborations.

Remote training for strengthening capacity in sexual and reproductive health and rights research: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Training has been used to develop research skills among sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) researchers. Remote education may accelerate transfer of skills and reduce barriers to strengthening research capacity. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of remote training on SRHR research and describe enablers and barriers of effective remote training. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Scielo were searched up to December 2022 for studies that evaluated in any language online research training programmes either on a SRHR topic or tailored for professionals working in SRHR published since 1990. Characteristics of included studies, the programmes they evaluated, the programme's effectiveness, and reported barriers and enablers to remote learning were extracted. Three researchers synthesized and described findings on effectiveness, impact and outcomes mapping them against the Kirkpatrick model. Additionally, thematic analysis from qualitative data was conducted to identify themes relating to the barriers and enablers of remote learning. RESULTS: Of 1,510 articles retrieved, six studies that included 2,058 remote learners met the inclusion criteria. Five out of six studies described empirical improvements in participant research knowledge/skills and three studies reported improvements in attitudes/self-efficacy towards research. Follow-up surveys from four studies revealed frequent application of new research skills and improved opportunities for career advancement and publication following online trainings. Cited barriers to effective online SRHR research training included time management challenges and participants' competing professional obligations; limited opportunities for interaction; and lack of support from home institutions. Cited enablers included well-structured and clear courses, learning objectives and expectations with participants; ensuring a manageable workload; facilitating interactions with mentors and hands-on experience; and selecting programme topics relevant to participants' jobs. CONCLUSION: Remote SRHR training can lead to improvements in research knowledge, skills, and attitudes, particularly when course learning objectives, structure, and expectations are outlined clearly, and ongoing mentorship is provided.

Development of a research capacity and culture tool for people with lived experience of mental health challenges.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated research capacity and culture in people with lived experience of mental health challenges by developing a quantitative tool that measures capacity to engage in research. METHOD: A cross-sectional, correlational methodology was employed, which comprised of three phases: lived experience consultations for item development (n = 15), item refinement (n = 20) and tool piloting. Items were adapted from, and extended, an existing research capacity and culture tool for healthcare workers. People (N = 112) with lived experience as mental health consumers, carers, peer workers and/or advocates aged 18-75 years took part in the tool piloting survey. RESULTS: Overall, participants rated their individual research capacity and culture skills as moderate (mean = 5.41, standard deviation = 2.04). The most commonly reported barriers to research engagement related to lack of knowledge, familiarity or experience with the research process. The most commonly reported enablers were altruistic, such as using their experiences to improve services and help others. Research capacity and culture significantly correlated with current research activities (rs = 0.25-0.41; ps < 0.05), but not with being a research participant (r = 0.09; p > 0.05), suggesting that building research capacity of people with lived experience requires them to be active members of research teams. CONCLUSION: The Lived Experience research capacity and culture tool developed in this study revealed that people with lived experience of mental health challenges are intrinsically motivated to engage in research to improve consumer outcomes. The tool may be useful to assess self, research team and organisational preparedness to conduct genuinely co-designed research, and to assess changes in lived experience research capacities and culture over time.

Describing the evidence-base for research engagement by health care providers and health care organisations: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Having a research-engaged health and medical workforce is associated with improvements in clinical outcomes for patients. As such, there has been significant government investment internationally to support health care organisations and services to increase staff engagement with research. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review sought to provide an overview of the literature describing strategies employed to increase research engagement by health care providers and organisations, and to undertake a qualitative analysis to generate a list of research engagement strategies. METHODS: A scoping review using systematic search strategies was undertaken to locate peer-review publications and grey literature related to research engagement by health care providers and organisations. Research engagement was defined as a 'deliberate set of intellectual and practical activities undertaken by health care staff and organisations to conduct research'. A database search of electronic records was performed with no limit on publication date. Publications were included regardless of study type (excluding systematic reviews) and categorised as either databased (presenting data or new analysis of existing data) and non-databased (no new data or analyses). Databased publications were further classified according to study type, study design and setting. A qualitative synthesis using a Framework Approach was undertaken with all studies that described a strategy to improve research engagement. RESULTS: A total of 152 publications were included in this study with 54% categorised as non-databased. Of the databased articles, the majority (72%) were descriptive studies describing prevalence of correlates of research engagement, 17 (25%) described intervention studies where only two were controlled studies. The following research engagement strategies were identified: i) dual skilled team/staff, ii) resources or physical infrastructure, iii) incentives, iv) leadership support of research, v) education/training, vi) networks, vii) forming partnerships or collaborations and viii) overall leadership structure of entity. CONCLUSIONS: The literature on research engagement is primarily opinion-based and descriptive in nature. To provide the evidence needed to inform strategies, this needs to progress beyond descriptive to more rigorous well-designed intervention research.

Allied health professionals' research capacity: open to interpretation?

Allied health professional research capacity and culture has been the focus of growing research interest of late. The recent study by Comer et al. represents the largest survey of allied health research capacity and culture to date. We congratulate the authors on this work and would like to raise some discussion points in relation to their study.The authors have interpreted their research capacity and culture survey results using cut-off values to indicate a degree of adequacy in relation to perceived research success and/or skill level. To our knowledge, the constructs of the research capacity and culture tool have not been validated to an extent that would enable such an inference to be made.Comer et al. describe perceived individual research success and/or skill as adequate, but the rating of skills in areas necessary for the conduct of original research, such as writing research protocols, ethics submissions, securing funding, and writing for publication range from median scores one to three, which is considered 'less than adequate' on the interpretation scale used by the authors.The survey results for the individual and organisational domains reported in Comer et al. are comparable to other similar studies. However, they uniquely conclude research success and/or skill to be adequate in both domains, which is contrary to the interpretation of the other studies.The interpretation of allied health professional research success and skill offered by Cromer et al. differs from studies with similar results and is contrary to previous reports of insufficient research capacity in terms of research trained and active practitioners within these professions in the UK.

The research interest, capacity and culture of NHS staff in South East Scotland and changes in attitude to research following the pandemic: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The UK National Health Service (NHS) is ideally placed to undertake research. The UK Government recently launched its vision of research within the NHS to improve research culture and activity amongst its staff. Currently, little is known about the research interest, capacity and culture of staff in one Health Board in South East Scotland and how their attitudes to research may have changed as a result of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. METHODS: We used the validated Research Capacity and Culture tool in an online survey of staff working in one Health Board in South East Scotland to explore attitudes to research at the organisation, team and individual level together with involvement in, barriers to and motivators to engage in research. Questions included changes in attitude to research as a result of the pandemic. Staff were identified by professional group: nurses/midwives, medical/dental, allied health professionals (AHP), other therapeutic and administrative roles. Median scores and interquartile ranges were reported and differences between groups assessed using the Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests with P < 0.05 accepted as statistical significance. Free-text entries were analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: Replies were received from 503/9145 potential respondents (5.5% response), of these 278 (3.0% response) completed all sections of the questionnaire. Differences between groups were noted in the proportions of those with research as part of their role (P = 0.012) and in being research-active (P < 0.001). Respondents reported high scores for promoting evidence-based practice and for finding and critically reviewing literature. Low scores were returned for preparing reports and securing grants. Overall, medical and other therapeutic staff reported higher levels of practical skills compared with other groups. Principal barriers to research were pressure of clinical work and lack of time, backfill and funds. 171/503 (34%) had changed their attitude to research as a result of the pandemic with 92% of 205 respondents more likely to volunteer for a study themselves. CONCLUSION: We found a positive change in attitude to research arising from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Research engagement may increase after addressing the barriers cited. The present results provide a baseline against which future initiatives introduced to increase research capability and capacity may be assessed.

Nursing, midwifery, and allied health professions research capacities and cultures: a survey of staff within a university and acute healthcare organisation.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing focus on the development of research capacity and culture in Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP). However, better understanding of the existing research success and skills, motivators, barriers, and development needs of NMAHP professionals is required to inform this development. This study sought to identify such factors within a university and an acute healthcare organisation. METHODS: An online survey, incorporating the Research Capacity and Culture tool, was administered to NMAHP professionals and students at a university and an acute healthcare organisation in the United Kingdom. Ratings of success/skill levels of teams and individuals were compared between professional groups using Mann-Whitney U tests. Motivators, barriers, and development needs were reported using descriptive statistics. Descriptive thematic analysis was used for open-ended text responses. RESULTS: A total of 416 responses were received (N&M n = 223, AHP n = 133, Other n = 60). N&M respondents were more positive than their AHP counterparts about the success/skill levels of their teams. There were no significant differences between N&M and AHP in their ratings of individual successes/skills. Finding and critically reviewing relevant literature were identified as specific individual strengths; with weaknesses in securing research funding, submitting ethics applications, writing for publication, and advising less experienced researchers. The main motivators for research were to develop skills, increased job satisfaction, and career advancement; whilst barriers included lack of time for research and other work roles taking priority. Key support needs identified included mentorship (for teams and individuals) and in-service training. Open-ended questions generated main themes of 'Employment & staffing', 'Professional services support', 'Clinical & academic management', 'Training & development', 'Partnerships' and 'Operating principles'. Two cross-cutting themes described issues common to multiple main themes: 'Adequate working time for research' and 'Participating in research as an individual learning journey'. CONCLUSIONS: Rich information was generated to inform the development of strategies to enhance research capacity and culture in NMAHP. Much of this can be generic but some nuances may be required to address some specific differences between professional groups, particularly related to perceived team success/skills and priorities identified for support and development.