What are the experiences, preparation, and support needs of early career clinical educators within an Australian tertiary health service?: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing demand for professional practice placement opportunities, supported by health professional educators, to enable future health workforce development. Early career health professionals performing the educator role is one strategy that can help meet this demand. However, there is a need to consider how best to prepare and support early career health professionals to become educators. This study aimed to explore the experiences and perspectives of early career occupational therapy clinical educators including their preparation and support needs. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were completed with ten early career occupational therapists who had supervised their first or second student on a professional practice placement. The participants worked within an Australian tertiary hospital and health service in various clinical settings. Interviews were completed within six weeks of placement completion and lasted approximately one hour. They were recorded and transcribed verbatim and reflexive inductive thematic analysis was undertaken to identify key themes. RESULTS: Ten occupational therapists, who had been working for an average of two years and two months, consented to participate. Initially, participants expressed mixed emotions about taking on the clinical educator role. They then described their adjustment to the role responsibilities, challenges encountered, and the development of the educator-student relationship. Participants found that the experience of supervising a student enhanced their educator, clinical, and professional skills and confidence. The important support elements of tailored educator preparation, placement design, and timely access to relevant resources and experienced staff were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated how early career health professionals can possess desirable educator attributes, such as enthusiasm for taking on the role and cultivating collaborative learning relationships with their students. The experience of being an educator also presents a professional development opportunity for early career health professionals. Insights gained about the specific preparation and support needs of early career clinical educators warrant consideration by organisations and staff involved in the provision of student professional practice placements. Overall, this study's findings signify the importance of engaging and investing in early career health professionals to support student clinical education and to develop our current and future healthcare workforce.

"How do I keep this live in my mind?" Allied Health Professionals' perspectives of barriers and enablers to implementing good clinical practice principles in research: a qualitative exploration.

BACKGROUND: Allied health professionals (AHPs) engaged in research are expected to comply with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) principles to protect participant safety and wellbeing and enhance data integrity. Currently, few studies have explored health professionals' perceptions of implementing and adhering to GCP principles in research with none of these including AHPs. Such knowledge is vital to guide future interventions to increase adherence to GCP principles. This study aimed to identify the barriers and enablers AHPs experience when applying GCP principles to research conduct in a public hospital and health service, as well as their perceived support needs. METHODS: The study used a qualitative descriptive study approach guided by behaviour change theory. AHPs currently undertaking ethically approved research within a public health service in Queensland, Australia were interviewed to explore barriers and enablers to adherence to GCP principles and support needs, with interview questions guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). The TDF was chosen as it allows for a systematic understanding of factors influencing implementation of a specific behaviour (i.e., GCP implementation) and can be used to inform tailored interventions. RESULTS: Ten AHPs across six professions were interviewed. Participants identified both enablers and barriers to implementing GCP across nine domains of the TDF and enablers across three additional domains. Examples of enablers included strong beliefs about the importance of GCP in increasing research rigour and participant safety (i.e. from TDF - beliefs about consequences); applying clinical skills and personal attributes when implementing GCP (i.e., skills), available training and support (i.e., environmental context and resources); and alignment with their moral sense to 'do the right thing' (i.e., professional identity). Barriers to GCP implementation were generally less commonly reported but included reduced time to implement GCP and a sense of 'red tape' (i.e., environmental context and resources), a lack of knowledge of GCP principles (i.e., knowledge) and a fear of making mistakes (i.e., emotions), and varying relevance to individual projects (i.e., knowledge). Suggestions for support were identified beyond training, such as physical resources (e.g., prescriptive checklists, templates and scripts), additional time, and regular one-on-one mentoring support. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that while clinicians recognise the importance of GCP and want to implement it, they report barriers to its practical implementation. GCP training alone is unlikely to address these barriers to implementing GCP in daily practice. Findings suggest that GCP training may be more useful to AHPs when it is tailored to the allied heath context and supplemented with additional supports including check-ups from experienced researchers and access to prescriptive resources. Future research however is needed to investigate the effectiveness of such strategies.

Improving Accuracy of Texture-Modified Diets and Thickened Fluids Provision in the Hospital: Evidence in Action.

Ensuring inpatients with dysphagia receive and consume the correct texture-modified diet and thickened fluid prescriptions is challenging, and errors can result in significant complications for patients and increased costs to hospitals. The aim of this study was to investigate underlying factors that help or hinder receipt and consumption of correct dietary prescriptions for people with dysphagia in the hospital setting then implement and evaluate a range of strategies to address identified issues. A mixed-methods study design, using an integrated knowledge translation approach, was conducted in three phases. In Phase 1, clinical incident data (i.e., documented incidents of diet/fluid errors, with errors defined as the provision or consumption of any food/fluid not appropriate for a patient's dietary prescription) were analyzed, and staff, patients, and family members were interviewed using the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify factors contributing to errors. In Phase 2, health professionals assisted with the development and implementation of interventions targeted at micro (patient/family), meso (staff), and macro (organizational) levels to address factors identified in Phase 1. In Phase 3, outcomes including the change in number of dietary clinical incidents pre- to post-intervention, meal accuracy error rates from mealtime audits post-intervention, and follow-up interviews were evaluated using quantitative and qualitative measures. Post-intervention, there was a 50% reduction in clinical incidents, and a 2.3% meal accuracy error rate was observed. Staff reported most interventions were acceptable and feasible within their workload, although some interventions were not well embedded in everyday practice. This study highlights the value in using an integrated knowledge translation approach to inform tailored interventions targeting improved dietary accuracy in the hospital setting.

Long term tailored implementation of structured "TREAT" journal clubs in allied health: a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study.

BACKGROUND: Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) commonly use journal clubs (JCs) to support Evidence-Based Practice (EBP). There is however little research regarding implementing and sustaining JCs in the long term, and their impact on EBP use and skills in AHPs. This study investigated the impact of implementing a structured JC format, called "TREAT" (previously only investigated across 6 sessions), over a longer period of 16 sessions for AHPs in a public health service. The study also investigated AHP's attendance, adherence, satisfaction and barriers and enablers to implementing the format. METHODS: A mixed methods hybrid-effectiveness implementation design was employed, guided by the Knowledge-to-Action cycle. EBP skills, confidence, use, and attitudes were assessed (Adapted Fresno Test, EBPQ, tailored journal club culture questionnaire) at baseline, and after 10 and 16-monthly sessions. Satisfaction and impact on clinical practice were explored using questionnaires at 10 and 16-months, with free-form responses identifying enablers and barriers to EBP culture and implementation. Data on attendance and adherence to the TREAT format were also collected. RESULTS: Six JCs comprising a total of 132 unique participants from seven Allied Health professions were assessed across three time points. EBP skills improved on the Adapted Fresno Test after 10-monthly (6.6 points: 95% CI, 0.43 to 12.7) and 16-monthly sessions (7.8 points, 95% CI, 0.85 to 14.7), and on self-reported total EBPQ ratings of confidence at 10-months (4.9 points: 95% CI, 2.2 to 7.5) and 16-months (5.7 points: 95% CI 2.7 to 8.7). Of 132 AHPs, 88 reported adopting new treatments/resources and 64 reported updating clinical procedures. Mean attendance was 5.7 sessions (SD = 3.8). Adherence to TREAT components in each session was 86% (95% CI, 83% to 89%). Most participants recommended the format and reported a desire to continue. Enablers to the JC included using clinically relevant topics and active participation while reported barriers included limited time to prepare. CONCLUSIONS: Despite variable attendance, TREAT JCs can continue to be implemented within a service for 16 monthly-sessions, and may contribute to improved EBP skills and confidence and changes in clinical practice over time. Tailoring of implementation strategies was shown to be important to address local enablers and barriers.

Outcomes of a funding initiative to promote allied health research activity: a qualitative realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Providing funding for clinicians to have protected time to undertake research can address a commonly cited barrier to research - lack of time. However, limited research has evaluated the impact or mechanisms of such funding initiatives. In the current economic environment, it is important that funding is used efficiently and judiciously and that mechanisms and contexts that may assist with maximising outcomes of funding initiatives are identified. This study aimed to describe the medium-term outcomes of a funding initiative to promote allied health research activity and to identify the key mechanisms and contexts that facilitated these outcomes. METHODS: We used a qualitative research design informed by a realist evaluation, to conduct 10 semi-structured interviews with allied health professionals who had participated in a funding initiative 1-3 years ago. Questions explored outcomes, mechanisms and contexts of the funding initiative. Data was thematically coded into context-mechanism-outcome configurations. RESULTS: Medium term outcomes included increased individual research opportunities, influence on team research culture and impact on clinical work/practice. Other outcomes included increased clinician confidence, knowledge and skill, and research outputs. However, some participants still had difficulties progressing research. Four context-mechanism-outcome configurations were identified to explain which contexts and mechanisms produced these outcomes. Examples of contexts included perception of managerial support, undertaking a research-based higher degree and joint applications, while mechanisms included accessing infrastructure and resources as well as individual researcher factors like motivation. CONCLUSION: Providing funding to allied health professionals to undertake and complete research can lead to important outcomes, including increased research opportunities, capacity and culture, increased research outputs, and changes to clinical practice. Outcomes are influenced by unique contexts and mechanisms and these should be considered in future implementation of similar funding initiatives.

The impact of a small-group educational intervention for allied health professionals to enhance evidence-based practice: mixed methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals are recommended to use evidence-based practice (EBP) principles to update and improve clinical practice. Well-designed educational initiatives, together with practice and feedback opportunities can improve individuals' EBP knowledge, skills and attitudes. METHODS: A concurrent mixed methods assessment was designed to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of four monthly workshops on allied health professionals' knowledge, skills, self-efficacy and behaviour. In between workshops, professionals were encouraged to practice and integrate EBP learnings with colleagues in their workplace. Participants completed three pre and post intervention assessments: Evidence-based Practice Confidence Scale; adapted Fresno test; and an adapted EBP Implementation Scale. A purpose designed satisfaction questionnaire was completed immediately after the educational intervention and follow up focus groups were conducted after 3 months. Mean change in assessment data was quantitatively assessed and comments from the clinician satisfaction questionnaire and focus groups were thematically analysed and interpreted together with quantitative data using the Classification Rubric for EBP Assessment tools in Education (CREATE). RESULTS: Sixteen allied health professionals participated in the EBP workshops and completed all baseline and post intervention assessments. Seven clinicians participated in follow up focus groups. All clinicians reported a positive reaction to the learning experience, preferring short monthly workshops to a full day session. They self-reported improvements in self-efficacy (mean change 15 p < 0.001) and implementing EBP behaviours (mean change 7, p < 0.001) from pre- to post-intervention. Although the positive change in EBP knowledge measured by the adapted Fresno test was not statistically significant (mean change 10, p = 0.21), clinicians described examples of improved knowledge and skills across all five key steps of EBP during the focus groups. A further, post hoc analysis of individual questions in the two self-reported scales indicated consistent improvement across key EBP knowledge and skills. CONCLUSIONS: A tailored small group EBP education intervention can enhance AHPs' self-efficacy to develop answerable questions, search the literature, critically appraise, apply and evaluate research evidence. Through practicing these behaviours and sharing new learning with their peers, allied health professionals can enhance their capability and motivation to use research evidence to potentially improve clinical practice.

Factors that influence the sustainability of structured allied health journal clubs: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Structured journal clubs are a widely used tool to promote evidence-based practice in health professionals, however some journal clubs (JC) are more effectively sustained than others. To date, little research has provided insights into factors which may influence sustainability of JCs within health care settings. As part of a larger randomised controlled study, this research aimed to gain understanding of clinicians' experiences of sustaining a structured JC format (TREAT- Tailoring Research Evidence and Theory) within their clinical context. The study also aimed to identify which strategies may assist longer term sustainability and future implementation of the TREAT format. METHODS: We employed a qualitative methodology, informed by behaviour change theory. Clinicians (n = 19) from five different JCs participated in focus groups to explore their experience in sustaining the JC format six months after the formal trial period had completed. Clinicians were asked to describe factors which they perceived helped or hindered sustaining components of the JC format within their local context. Following a descriptive summary of the data, barriers and enablers were thematically analysed according to behaviour change theory domains: capability, motivation and opportunity and further mapped to targeted implementation strategies. RESULTS: Participants reported perceived benefits of maintaining the TREAT format and described several components that promoted its sustainability. Sustaining factors linked to individuals' capability included building research knowledge and skills and having access to research experts. Sustaining factors that enhanced opportunities for behaviour change included management expectation to attend and a team culture which values evidence based practice, while factors found to enhance individuals' motivation included the JC having close application to practice and clinicians sensing ownership of the JC. Several implementation strategies to enhance these factors are described including graduated support to clinicians in facilitation of JCs and greater engagement with managers. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term sustainability of a structured JC is dependent on both individual and service level factors and a balance of implementation strategies that enhance capability, opportunity and motivation. Consideration of how clinicians can be engaged to take ownership and build their own capability from the commencement of the JC is important. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12616000811404 .

Implementing Cough Reflex Testing in a Clinical Pathway for Acute Stroke: A Pragmatic Randomised Controlled Trial.

Silent aspiration is common after stroke and can lead to subsequent pneumonia. While standard bedside dysphagia assessments are ineffective at predicting silent aspiration, cough reflex testing (CRT) has shown promise for identifying patients at risk of silent aspiration. We investigated the impact of CRT on patient and service outcomes when embedded into a clinical pathway. 488 acute stoke patients were randomly allocated to receive either CRT or standard care (i.e. bedside assessment). Primary outcomes included confirmed pneumonia within 3 months post stroke and length of acute inpatient stay. Secondary outcomes related to the feasibility of implementing a CRT pathway and clinician and patient satisfaction. There was a non-significant reduction in pneumonia rates by 2.2% points in the CRT group (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.06-1.62). There was a non-significant difference of 0.7 days (95% CI - 0.29 to 1.71 days) in length of stay between the standard care group and the CRT group. The CRT took on average 3 min longer to complete (p < 0.01) and resulted in a significant 6.7% increase in videofluoroscopic referrals (p = 0.02); however, these results are clinically insignificant. High patient and clinician satisfaction with CRT was found, with clinicians reporting additional knowledge and confidence in decision making for dysphagia management. Post hoc subgroup analyses according to stroke types were conducted and revealed no significant differences in pneumonia rates after adjustment for multiple comparisons. In conclusion, it was possible to implement a CRT pathway with minimal increases in clinician resources. While clinicians perceived CRT as beneficial in clinical decision making, the efficacy of CRT for reducing pneumonia rates in acute stroke remains to be established.Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au . Unique identifier: ACTRN12616000724471.

The effectiveness and feasibility of TREAT (Tailoring Research Evidence and Theory) journal clubs in allied health: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Journal clubs (JC) may increase clinicians' evidence-based practice (EBP) skills and facilitate evidence uptake in clinical practice, however there is a lack of research into their effectiveness in allied health. We investigated the effectiveness of a structured JC that is Tailored According to Research Evidence And Theory (TREAT) in improving EBP skills and practice compared to a standard JC format for allied health professionals. Concurrently, we explored the feasibility of implementing TREAT JCs in a healthcare setting, by evaluating participating clinicians' perceptions and satisfaction. METHODS: We conducted an explanatory mixed methods study involving a cluster randomised controlled trial with a nested focus group for the intervention participants. Nine JCs with 126 allied health participants were randomly allocated to receive either the TREAT or standard JC format for 1 h/month for 6 months. We conducted pre-post measures of EBP skills and attitudes using the EBP questionnaire and Assessing Competence in Evidence-Based Medicine tool and a tailored satisfaction and practice change questionnaire. Post-intervention, we also conducted a focus group with TREAT participants to explore their perceptions of the format. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between JC formats in EBP skills, knowledge or attitudes or influence on clinical practice, with participants maintaining intermediate level skills across time points. Participants reported significantly greater satisfaction with the organisation of the TREAT format. Participants in both groups reported positive changes to clinical practice. Perceived outcomes to the TREAT format and facilitating mechanisms were identified including the use of an academic facilitator, group appraisal approach and consistent appraisal tools which assisted skill development and engagement. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to implement an evidence-based JC for allied health clinicians. While clinicians were more satisfied with the TREAT format, it did not significantly improve their EBP skills, attitudes, knowledge and/or practice, when compared to the standard format. The use of an academic facilitator, group based critical appraisal, and the consistent use of appraisal tools were perceived as useful components of the JC format. A structured JC may maintain EBP skills in allied health clinicians and facilitate engagement, however additional training may be required to further enhance EBP skills. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12616000811404 Retrospectively registered 21 June 2016.

A cross sectional observational study of research activity of allied health teams: is there a link with self-reported success, motivators and barriers to undertaking research?

BACKGROUND: Team-based approaches to research capacity building (RCB) may be an efficient means to promote allied health research participation and activity. In order to tailor such interventions, a clearer understanding of current patterns of research participation within allied health teams is needed. Different self-report measures exist which evaluate a team's research capacity and participation, as well as associated barriers and motivators. However, it remains unclear how such measures are associated with a team's actual research activity (e.g., journal publications, funding received). In response, this observational study aimed to identify the research activity, self-reported success, and motivations and barriers to undertaking research of eight allied health professional (AHP) teams and to explore whether any relationships exist between the self-reported measures and actual research activity within each team. METHODS: A total of 95 AHPs from eight teams completed the research capacity and culture survey to evaluate team success, barriers and motivators to undertaking research, and an audit of research activity from January 2013 to August 2014 was undertaken within each team. Kendell's correlation coefficients were used to determine the association between research activity (i.e., number of journal publications, ethically approved projects and funding received) and the self-reported measures. RESULTS: Seven out of eight teams rated their teams as having average success in research and demonstrated some form of research activity including at least two ethically approved projects. Research activity varied between teams, with funding received ranging from $0 to over $100,000, and half the teams not producing any journal publications. Team motivators demonstrated a stronger association with research activity compared to barriers, with the motivator "enhancing team credibility" being significantly associated with funding received. No significant association between self-reported research success and actual research activity was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings suggest that self-report measures of research success may not always correspond to actual research activity, and a combination of both these measures may be useful when planning RCB interventions. Variation in activity between teams and organisations should also be considered when tailoring RCB interventions. Reinforcing intrinsically motivating rewards of research may also be useful in promoting research participation for some teams.

Allied health research positions: a qualitative evaluation of their impact.

BACKGROUND: Research positions embedded within healthcare settings have been identified as an enabler to allied health professional (AHP) research capacity; however, there is currently limited research formally evaluating their impact. In 2008, a Health Practitioner industrial agreement funded a research capacity building initiative within Queensland Health, Australia, which included 15 new allied health research positions. The present project used a qualitative and realist approach to explore the impact of these research positions, as well as the mechanisms which facilitated or hindered their success within their respective organisations. METHODS: Forty-four AHP employees from six governmental health services in Queensland, Australia, participated in the study. Individual interviews were undertaken, with individuals in research positions (n = 8) and their reporting line managers (n = 8). Four stakeholder focus groups were also conducted with clinicians, team leaders and professional heads who had engaged with the research positions. RESULTS: Nine key outcomes of the research positions were identified across individual, team/service and organisational/community levels. These outcomes included clinician skill development, increased research activity, clinical and service changes, increased research outputs and collaborations, enhanced research and workplace culture, improved profile of allied health, development of research infrastructure, and professional development of individuals in the research positions. Different mechanisms that influenced these outcomes were identified. These mechanisms were grouped by those related to the (1) research position itself, (2) organisational factors and (3) implementation factors. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings highlight the potential value of the research positions for individuals, teams and clinical services across different governmental healthcare services, and demonstrate the impact of the roles on building the internal and external profile of allied health. Results build upon the emerging evidence base for allied health research positions and have important implications for a number of stakeholders (i.e. individuals in the research positions, AHPs and their managers, university partners and state-wide executives). Key recommendations are provided for all stakeholders to enhance the ongoing impact of these roles and the potential advocacy for additional positions and resources to support them.

The role and impact of research positions within health care settings in allied health: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Embedding dedicated research positions within healthcare settings is a potential strategy to build allied health research capacity, with different health care organisations investing in such positions. The aim of this review was to gather evidence regarding the nature of the role of the research position in allied health professional (AHP) healthcare settings and the impact that these positions have on building research capacity. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken searching eight databases (Medline CINAHL, Cochrane, OTSeeker, Speechbite, PEDro, Web of Science, and Proquest) using English language restrictions. Both authors independently screened abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data and performed quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Studies were included that reported the evaluation and/or components of the role of a dedicated research position with AHPs in any healthcare setting. A thematic analysis approach was used to synthesise findings. RESULTS: A total of 360 abstracts were initially screened, with 58 full text articles being reviewed. Eight unique studies were included in the thematic analysis clarifying either the nature of role of the research position (n = 7) or impact of the position (n = 4). Studies included mixed methods (n = 3), descriptive case study (n = 4), and observational (n = 1) designs. The majority of studies reported the research positions to provide academic support to individual clinicians and their teams, while developing their own research projects. Other studies reported support for research capacity building at a service and organisational level. Positive changes from these research positions was reported via increased individual research skills and participation and research outputs, improvements in research culture, attitudes and team and organisational level skills. CONCLUSION: Emerging evidence suggests that research positions embedded within healthcare settings can influence individual and team based research skills and research participation of AHPs. Future research is needed to further investigate the sustainability of changes arisen from research positions and what mechanisms of the positions have the greatest impact. Healthcare managers should consider how to support potential components of the research position roles identified in the literature, as well consider evaluating their impact on research capacity, cultural and attitudinal changes of AHP staff in addition to traditional research metrics.

Appetite for change: a multidisciplinary team approach to behavioral modification for weight management in a community health group setting.

PURPOSE: Obesity is a growing issue in Australia with limited evidence for brief community based intervention. This preliminary study aimed to investigate the long term effects of a 4-week group based multidisciplinary behavior management program for weight loss in the community health setting. METHOD: A quasi-experimental study design was employed recruiting patients referred to two Community Health Centers. Participants completed a 4-week Appetite for change program, comprising four 2-h group sessions co-facilitated by a multidisciplinary team. The mindfulness self efficacy scale (MSES), quality of life scale (QoL), and self-reported knowledge and stages of change were measured pre-treatment, immediately post-treatment and, 6 and 12 months post-treatment. Weight and waist circumference were additionally measured at baseline, 6 and 12 months post-treatment. RESULTS: Eighty participants (mean age 63 ± 12.1 years) comprising 73 % women consented to participate. Statistically significant improvements (p ≤ 0.01) from pre-treatment were found at both 6 and 12 months, with a clinically significant mean percentage weight loss of approximately 4 %, and a mean improvement of 8.5 point on QoL at 12 months follow-up. Self-reported improvements in stages of change and knowledge were also maintained at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Clinically and statistically significant long term improvements in all outcomes were found following a multidisciplinary brief intervention program for overweight/obese adults in the community health setting. The promising results following the Appetite for Change program warrant further controlled investigation.

Exploring barriers and solutions to consumer involvement in health service research using a nominal group technique.

BACKGROUND: Consumer involvement in health research is when patients, their families and caregivers work with researchers on research projects. Despite the growing expectation for health services to facilitate the involvement of consumers in research, the practical integration of this approach is an ongoing process, with limited research conducted into how Australian health services can support this practice. This study explored consumer perspectives on the barriers and solutions to enabling consumer involvement in research within an Australian tertiary hospital and health service, and staff perspectives on the solutions to facilitating consumer involvement. A prior survey had identified barriers to consumer involvement from the staff perspective. The broad aim was to inform the development of a framework to help promote consumer involvement in research within the health service. METHODS: A Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was utilised with groups comprised of health service consumers and staff. Three health consumers were co-researchers in the full life-cycle of this study and are included as authors. RESULTS: Ten consumers and 14 staff participated across three sessions ranging from one to three hours. For consumers, barriers to their involvement were grouped into seven domains: (1) lack of connection with researchers/research projects, (2) low research literacy, (3) structural barriers, (4) lack of acknowledgement, (5) implementation challenges, (6) inadequate information provision, and (7) representation concerns. Solutions to enabling involvement were grouped into five domains: (1) support to connect with researchers/research projects, (2) adequate information provision, (3) incentive for involvement, (4) acknowledgement, and (5) balanced representation. Staff ideas for solutions were grouped into five domains: (1) support to connect with consumers, (2) support to involve consumers, (3) access to funds to remunerate consumers, (4) more time to involve consumers, and (5) staff training. CONCLUSION: Through an NGT methodology, this study delivered a nuanced comprehension of perspectives on involving consumers in research from both health service consumers and staff. These findings serve as a foundation for identifying strategies that foster enhanced and refined relationships between consumers and researchers, advancing the collaborative landscape in health research. The findings from this project offer valuable strategies for researchers to better engage consumers in research and for consumer groups to enhance their involvement. Additionally, these insights could be used by other health services to advocate for essential resources.

Consumer involvement in health research is when patients, their families, and caregivers work with researchers on research projects. While there is a growing expectation for health services to promote the involvement of consumers in health service research, it is still a work in progress, especially in Australia, where there hasn't been much research done on this topic. This study looked at what consumers and staff at an Australian hospital thought would hinder or help consumers to become involved in health research. The study used a method called the Nominal Group Technique (NGT), where groups of staff and consumers met for sessions ranging from one to three hours to share and prioritise their ideas. Consumers thought that barriers to their involvement included difficulty connecting with researchers or projects, not knowing much about research, and personal barriers to involvement (such as lack of childcare). They believed that better connection with researchers, information, incentives for involvement, and ensuring everyone's voices are heard were possible solutions. Staff also had ideas for solutions, like providing support to connect with consumers and more time for research activities. Overall, this study describes what consumers and staff think about working together on research. These findings can help develop strategies for building relationships between consumers and researchers, advancing collaborative efforts in health research.

How can healthcare organisations increase doctors' research engagement? A scoping review.

PURPOSE: Clinician engagement in research has positive impacts for healthcare, but is often difficult for healthcare organisations to support in light of limited resources. This scoping review aimed to describe the literature on health service-administered strategies for increasing research engagement by medical practitioners. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched from 2000 to 2021 and two independent reviewers screened each record for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were that studies sampled medically qualified clinicians; reported empirical data; investigated effectiveness of an intervention in improving research engagement and addressed interventions implemented by an individual health service/hospital. FINDINGS: Of the 11,084 unique records, 257 studies were included. Most (78.2%) studies were conducted in the USA, and were targeted at residents (63.0%). Outcomes were measured in a variety of ways, most commonly publication-related outcomes (77.4%), though many studies used more than one outcome measure (70.4%). Pre-post (38.8%) and post-only (28.7%) study designs were the most common, while those using a contemporaneous control group were uncommon (11.5%). The most commonly reported interventions included Resident Research Programs (RRPs), protected time, mentorship and education programs. Many articles did not report key information needed for data extraction (e.g. sample size). ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This scoping review demonstrated that, despite a large volume of research, issues like poor reporting, infrequent use of robust study designs and heterogeneous outcome measures limited application. The most compelling available evidence pointed to RRPs, protected time and mentorship as effective interventions. Further high-quality evidence is needed to guide healthcare organisations on increasing medical research engagement.

Impacts of the Early COVID-19 Response on Allied Health Staff Within an Australian Tertiary Health Service: A Qualitative Study.

Purpose: Understanding the experiences and needs of healthcare workers is crucial in strengthening healthcare system resilience during times of change. We aimed to explore allied health (AH) professionals' perceptions of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic response on their work experiences. Participants and Methods: Qualitative descriptive study using thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with AH professionals employed in a large Australian health service. Results: Four themes were conceptualized from interviews of 21 AH clinicians and consolidated with six AH managers. Impacts were at personal, service, and systems levels. An overarching theme of "acceptance of circumstances due to the pandemic" influenced experiences within each level. Service changes included service cessation, remote service delivery, new COVID-19 protocols and role or work location alterations. Some staff were empowered in making practice changes, while others lost research or career opportunities. Despite low COVID-19-related hospitalizations and fatalities, staff reported stresses from workload changes and fear for self or loved ones. Open, clear communication assisted in alleviating anxiety, while perceived involvement in decision making and administrative and/or technical support for implementation of new processes facilitated change management processes. Conclusion: The study demonstrates the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic response on AH professionals. Gleaned in a context with limited community disease transmission and without the challenges of providing care for large numbers of COVID-19 patients, the findings have implications for change management within health services in any context in which rapid change is required. The wellbeing of the workforce should be forefront. Clear communication is critical, with staff involved in decision-making where possible. The needs of vulnerable staff should be considered with clear processes and eligibility guidelines to ensure provision of appropriate support and transparency of decision making. Workloads should be monitored, and adequate infrastructure, technical support and training provided for new initiatives or processes.

Effectiveness of Intensive Voice Therapy Versus Weekly Therapy for Muscle Tension Dysphonia: A Noninferiority Randomised Controlled Trial With Nested Focus Group.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the noninferiority of intensive voice therapy and compare its effects with weekly voice therapy on multidimensional outcomes of voice and well-being, satisfaction, and attendance in people with muscle tension dysphonia (MTD). The study further aimed to explore clinician's perceptions of barriers and enablers to implementation of intensive therapy. STUDY DESIGN: Noninferiority randomised controlled trial with nested focus group. METHODS: Twenty adults with MTD were randomised to receive either weekly voice therapy (1 hour per week for 8 weeks) or intensive voice therapy (1 hour, 4 days per week for 2 weeks). Participants were assessed by a blinded assessor twice before treatment, once post treatment and once at 4 weeks follow up on the primary outcome measure VHI and a range of secondary auditory-perceptual, acoustic, and patient (i.e., VoiSS, satisfaction) and clinician reported outcome measures (i.e., AusTOMs, attendance rates). Five Speech Language Pathologists also participated in a focus group to explore barriers and enablers to implementing intensive therapy, with questions and analyses guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: While noninferiority for the primary outcome measure VHI was not confirmed, secondary outcome measures revealed comparable within group clinically important improvements for VoiSS and the AusTOMs, as well as selected acoustic and auditory-perceptual measures for both groups. A trend of more improvements being maintained in the intensive group was identified. Comparably high satisfaction and attendance was also found between groups. Clinicians reported more enablers than barriers to providing intensive therapy which included beliefs that it led to greater progression and consolidation of patient learning, was supported by the local context and was associated with positive emotions. Barriers related to difficulties with booking and scheduling and the belief that intensive therapy was not for all patients. CONCLUSIONS: While the current study was likely underpowered to establish non-inferiority of intensive therapy, secondary outcomes suggested that intensive therapy may produce comparable benefits to voice, wellbeing, satisfaction and attendance compared to weekly therapy and may be a viable therapy option for individuals with MTD. When implementing intensive therapy, clinicians should consider patient's preferences and availability, as well as systems which allow for flexible booking and therapy provision for patients. Clear recommendations for future research including the use of a larger sample and telehealth are also provided.

The who, why, when, where, what and how of using outcome measures in dysarthria: A qualitative exploration of speech-language pathologists' perspectives.

PURPOSE: To date, little research has explored clinical assessment practices in the management of dysarthria. The aim of the present study was to explore the practices and perspectives of Australian speech-language pathologists (SLPs) regarding outcome measures (OMs) in the management of dysarthria, including barriers and enablers to their use. METHOD: A focus group methodology was used to explore the practices and perspectives of 16 SLPs working with adults with dysarthria. The 4 focus groups were transcribed and analysed using qualitative content analysis with barriers and enablers to the use of OMs analysed according to the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULT: Seven categories were identified regarding SLPs' practices and perspectives on the use of OMs in dysarthria management. These were related to the importance of assessments, OMs currently and not currently being utilised, ideal assessment features, perspectives on the development of a core set of OMs in dysarthria management, and perceived enablers and barriers to the use of OMs. Each category had a number of constituent subcategories. Overarching the categories was the theme: the who, why, when, where, what and how of dysarthria outcome measurement. CONCLUSION: The use of OMs in dysarthria is influenced by a range of factors including: the clinical setting, patient factors, and where and when the patient is in their recovery journey. Variability in the assessments used suggests that formal measures may not meet current clinical needs.

Using knowledge brokering activities to promote allied health clinicians' engagement in research: a qualitative exploration.

INTRODUCTION: Engaging clinicians in research can improve healthcare organisational performance, patient and staff satisfaction. Emerging evidence suggests that knowledge brokering activities potentially support clinicians' research engagement, but it is unclear how best they should be used. OBJECTIVES: This study explores how embedded researchers utilised knowledge brokering activities to engage research interested clinicians in research. DESIGN: A longitudinal qualitative interview based study was co-designed to investigate how experienced research fellows utilise knowledge brokering activities to facilitate allied health clinicians' engagement in research. SETTING: In one large tertiary level, regional Australian health service, research fellows were matched with research interested clinicians. METHODS: Qualitative analysis of three longitudinal semi-structured interviews for each research fellow was undertaken. Initial descriptions of their utilisation of knowledge brokering activities were deductively coded. Reflexive thematic analysis was utilised to generate a shared explanation of clinicians' engagement in research. RESULTS: Three research fellows facilitated 21 clinicians' participation in and leadership of clinical research projects over 12 months. They utilised all ten key knowledge brokering activities with each clinician, with differing patterns and examples. Research fellows described using linkage and exchange activities of communicating and collaborating with key stakeholders, and they tailored knowledge management products for individual's engagement. Further, they described a broader learning journey where they clarified and monitored individuals' capabilities, motivation and their contextual support for research engagement. CONCLUSION: When research fellows chose and tailored knowledge brokering activities to align and extend clinicians' research capabilities and motivation, they created individualised learning curriculums to support clinicians' participation in and leadership of local research projects. Health and academic leaders should consider structuring embedded researcher positions to include knowledge brokering roles and activities, specifically for research interested clinicians who are ready to participate in and lead research projects.

A systematic review of group intervention for acquired dysarthria in adults.

PURPOSE: This review aimed to evaluate the evidence for group therapy in improving speech production in adults with acquired dysarthria. Secondary outcomes included communication effectiveness and/or wellbeing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review protocol was prospectively published on PROSPERO. Fourteen electronic databases were searched to identify experimental studies investigating adults with acquired dysarthria participating in group intervention with outcomes related to communication and/or wellbeing. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) or the McMaster University's Critical Review Form, and the TIDieR template for intervention description and replication. RESULTS: 21 studies were identified involving 330 individuals with dysarthria, from mostly Parkinson's disease (PD) (97%; n = 321). Treatment approaches included singing therapy (n = 10), loudness therapy (n = 5) and multi-components therapy (including a combination of impairment and/or compensatory approaches) (n = 4). Studies varied in intensity and outcome measures used. Statistically significant improvements to speech production and/or wellbeing were reported following most approaches. CONCLUSION: There is some preliminary moderate-quality evidence to suggest that group therapy may improve speech production and in some cases communication effectiveness or wellbeing in people with dysarthria following PD, with more consistent improvements being found for loudness approaches. Singing approaches were frequently studied in PD with some improvements to intelligibility evident. Further well-designed controlled studies including individuals with non-progressive aetiologies is warranted to establish the effectiveness of group treatment.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONGroup therapy may be an effective means of improving speech production and/or wellbeing in individuals with dysarthria following Parkinson's disease.Studies' employing loudness-based group therapy for PD demonstrated more consistent improvements to intensity measures.Some controlled studies utilising singing group therapy resulted in improved intelligibility in PD.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42015029374.