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.

Strengthening clinical trials in African primary care.

Not applicable.

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.

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.

Doctoral training to support sustainable soil geochemistry research in Africa.

Africa's potential for scientific research is not yet being realized, for various reasons including a lack of researchers in many fields and insufficient funding. Strengthened research capacity through doctoral training programmes in higher education institutes (HEIs) in Africa, to include collaboration with national, regional and international research institutions, can facilitate self-reliant and sustainable research to support socio-economic development. In 2012, the Royal Society and the UK's Department for International Development (now the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) launched the Africa Capacity Building Initiative (ACBI) Doctoral Training Network which aimed to strengthen research capacity and training across sub-Saharan Africa. The ACBI supported 30 core PhD scholarships, all registered/supervised within African HEIs with advisory support from the UK-based institutes. Our 'Soil geochemistry to inform agriculture and health policies' consortium project, which was part of the ACBI doctoral training programme network, was implemented in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe between 2014 and 2020. The aims of our consortium were to explore linkages between soil geochemistry, agriculture and public health for increased crop productivity, nutrition and safety of food systems and support wider training and research activities in soil science. Highlights from our consortium included: (i) the generation of new scientific evidence on linkages between soils, crops and human nutrition; (ii) securing new projects to translate science into policy and practice; and (iii) maintaining sustainable collaborative learning across the consortium. Our consortium delivered high-quality science outputs and secured new research and doctoral training funding from a variety of sources to ensure the continuation of research and training activities. For example, follow-on Global Challenges Research Funded Translation Award provided a strong evidence base on the prevalence of deficiencies in children under 5 years of age and women of reproductive age in Zimbabwe. This new evidence will contribute towards the design and implementation of a nationally representative micronutrient survey as an integral part of the Zimbabwe Demographic and Health Surveys conducted by the Ministry of Health and Child Care. The award also generated new evidence and a road map for creating quality innovative doctorates through a doctoral training landscape activity led by the Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education. Although our project and the wider ACBI has contributed to increasing the self-reliance and sustainability of research within the region, many challenges remain and ongoing investment is required.

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.

How "global" is research in early intervention for psychosis? A bibliometric analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Unlike high-income countries (HICs), there are few early intervention services for psychosis in low-and middle-income countries (LAMICs). In HICs, research spurred the growth of such services. Little is known about the state of EIP research in LAMICs, which we address by examining their research output and collaborations vis-à-vis that of HICs. METHODS: We conducted a search in Scopus database for early psychosis publications in scientific journals since 1980. Data from each record, including title, author affiliation, and date, were downloaded. For HIC-LAMIC collaborations, data on first, corresponding and last authors' affiliations, and funding were manually extracted. Descriptive statistics and social network analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Globally, early psychosis publications increased from 24 in 1980 to 1297 in 2022. Of 16,942 included publications, 16.1 % had LAMIC authors. 71.3 % involved authors from a single country (regardless of income level). 21.9 % were collaborations between HICs, 6.6 % between HICs and LAMICs, and 0.2 % among LAMICs. For research conducted in LAMICs and involving HIC-LAMIC collaborations, the first, last, and corresponding authors were LAMIC-based in 71.8 %, 60.7 %, and 63.0 %, respectively. These positions were dominated (80 %) by authors from four LAMICs. 29.4 % of the HIC-LAMIC subset was funded solely by LAMIC funders, predominantly two LAMICs. CONCLUSIONS: LAMICs are starkly underrepresented in the otherwise flourishing body of early psychosis research. They have far fewer collaborations and less funding than HICs. Closing these gaps in LAMICs where most of the world's youth live is imperative to generate the local knowledge needed to strengthen early psychosis services that are known to improve outcomes.

How an international research programme can contribute to improvements in the research environment: the perspective of doctoral students in sub-Saharan Africa.

Background: The Africa Capacity Building Initiative (ACBI) programme aimed to 'strengthen the research and training capacity of higher education institutions and support the development of individual scientists in sub-Saharan Africa through UK-Africa research collaborations' including by funding PhD studentships. We conducted research to understand students' experiences and to see how consortia-based programmes such as ACBI and their own institutions can enhance PhD students' research environment and progress. Methods: In-depth interviews with 35 ACBI-funded PhD students explored their perspectives about how their research and personal development benefitted from belonging to a research consortium. Questionnaires were used to corroborate interview findings. Results: Students recognised that membership of a research consortium provided many benefits compared to less well-resourced peers. By drawing on the programme and consortiums' resources, they were often able to overcome some limitations in their own institution's systems and facilities. Through their consortia they could access a wide range of international expertise and support from mentors and colleagues for their technical and psychosocial needs. Multiple consortia opportunities for engaging with the international scientific community and for networking, gave them confidence and motivation and enhanced their career prospects. Conclusion: Our study and its recommendations highlight how the breadth and diversity of resources available to PhD students through research consortia can be harnessed to facilitate students' progress and to create a supportive and conducive research environment. It also underlines how, through a multi-level approach, consortia can contribute to longer-term improvements in institutional research environments for PhD students.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Advancing HIV cure research in low- and middle-income countries requires empowerment of the next generation of scientists.

While low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially in Southern and Eastern Africa, bear the largest burden of the HIV globally, investigators working on the front lines in these regions are leading a limited number of research efforts, particularly related to HIV cure. Conducting HIV cure research in high-burden HIV LIMCs provides an unparalleled opportunity to formulate innovative research strategies, design trials tailored to the local context, evaluate clinical outcomes within key and vulnerable populations, meaningful involvement of stakeholders, and to shape policies in areas where HIV prevention and cure interventions can yield the most significant impact. Further, the high prevalence of infection, with varied HIV strains affecting large diverse populations, creates a unique environment for studies that would not be feasible in any other part of the world. This underscores the critical importance of addressing obstacles to unlock the full potential of research efforts in these regions. In this viewpoint, we identify significant challenges facing early career investigators in LMICs, particularly in Africa, that hinder their full engagement in HIV cure research. Drawing examples from the International AIDS Society's Research-for-Cure Academy, we provide practical recommendations to overcome barriers that include limited access to funding, effective mentors, educational and career development opportunities, coupled with inadequate investment in infrastructure that contribute towards the limited number of investigators from high-burden HIV LIMCs who are spearheading cutting-edge cure research. Addressing these challenges is crucial to empower investigators who possess unique insights and expertise, and who are well positioned to lead HIV cure-related research efforts. We acknowledge and welcome initiatives that promote capacity building and knowledge exchange between early-career investigators in LMICs and their peers and scientific leaders from high-income countries (HICs). Prioritizing investment in global collaboration and partnership will play a pivotal role in empowering the next generation of African scientists and clinicians. To expedite advancements of cure-related strategies that will be effective in high-burden HIV LMICs, we endorse the sustainable expansion of these pivotal initiatives in these regions, to enhance their effectiveness and hasten progress in the pursuit of a global HIV cure.

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.

Partnership-building considerations for implementation science in learning health systems: a case study of the Implementation Science Collaborative in Alberta, Canada.

Introduction: Implementation of health innovations is inherently collaborative, requiring trans-sectoral partnerships between implementation researchers, innovation teams, and implementation practitioners. Implementation science has been shown to improve implementation successes; however, challenges that hinder partnerships to advance implementation science continue to persist. Using a whole-system approach to assess and respond to implementation science partnership barriers may shed light on effective responses. Methods: We conducted a case study of Alberta's learning health system, using semi-structured group and individual interviews to create a nuanced understanding of the considerations required for implementation research collaborations. We interviewed 53 participants representing 21 offices in the health system, academia, professional associations, and government who regularly plan, evaluate, and/or study health system implementation initiatives in Alberta. Using the Partnership Model for Research Capacity Building, we identified current facilitators and challenges for partnerships for conducting and using implementation science, at different levels of Alberta's health-research ecosystem. Results: Alberta's healthcare system is well set up to readily embed intervention effectiveness and efficacy research. Infrastructure was also in place to strengthen implementation practice. However, weaknesses around exchanging knowledge and skills, providing feedback and mentoring, and accommodating diversity affected the ability of both individuals and teams to build implementation science capacity. Without this capacity, teams could not participate in embedded implementation research collaborations. We report the response of the Alberta Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research SUPPORT Unit to these barriers to provide practical guidance on various program options to strengthen individual- and organization-level implementation science capacity. Discussion: This study applied a whole-system approach to assess factors across Alberta's health-research ecosystem, which affect partnerships to advance implementation science. Our findings illustrated that partnership considerations go beyond interpersonal factors and include system-wide considerations. With the results, health organization leaders have (1) a method for assessing organizational capability to readily embed implementation research and (2) a catalog of potential responses to create conditions to readily engage with implementation science in their day-to-day implementation processes.

Portfolio analysis of global tobacco control research funding at the National Cancer Institute, 2000-2019.

INTRODUCTION: Research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where the majority of global tobacco users reside, is critical to addressing the global tobacco epidemic. This analysis describes the global tobacco control research portfolio funded by the National Cancer Institute from fiscal years 2000 to 2019. METHODS: We used the National Institutes of Health Query, View, Report database to identify extramural grants relevant to global tobacco control research. Abstracts were analyzed to describe grant characteristics, including topic areas, tobacco products, countries, and regions of focus. Bibliometric and co-authorship network analyses were performed for publications associated with relevant grants. RESULTS: Of the 93 relevant grants with foreign (non-US) involvement, the majority (83.9%) supported research in upper and lower middle-income countries. The majority of grants (86.0%) focused on cigarettes, with a small subset of grants addressing smokeless tobacco, waterpipe use, or other non-cigarette products. Most grants focused on at least one of the six tobacco control policy measures in the World Health Organization MPOWER package; almost half (48.4%) focused on monitoring tobacco use and around one-third (32.3%) focused on offering tobacco cessation treatment, while other MPOWER measures received less attention in the research portfolio. While most of these grants, and the funding initiatives that supported them, emphasized research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), only 3 of 93 grants were awarded directly to LMIC-based institutions. CONCLUSIONS: There is a critical need for research to develop and test strategies to adapt, implement, and scale up evidence-based interventions across diverse LMIC settings. This study identified gaps in research activity that should be addressed to strengthen global tobacco control research capacity.

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.

Strengthening research capacity of early-mid career researchers: Implementation and evaluation of the Excellence in Non-COmmunicable disease REsearch (ENCORE) program.

High-quality training and networking are pivotal for enhancing the research capacity of early- to mid-career researchers in the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases. Beyond building research skills, these professionals gain valuable insights from interdisciplinary mentorship, networking opportunities, and exposure to diverse cultures and health systems. Despite the significance of such initiatives, their implementation remains underexplored. Here, we describe the implementation and evaluation of the Excellence in Non-COommunicable disease REsearch (ENCORE) program, a collaborative initiative between Australia and India that was launched in 2016 and spanned a duration of 3 years. Led by a consortium that included the University of Melbourne and leading Indian research and medical institutions, ENCORE involved 15 faculty members and 20 early-mid career researchers. The program comprised various elements, including face-to-face forums, masterclasses, webinars, a health-technology conference, and roundtable events. ENCORE successfully trained the early-career researchers, resulting in over 30 peer-reviewed articles, 36 conference presentations, and the submission of seven grant applications, three of which received funding. Beyond individual achievements, ENCORE fostered robust research collaboration between Australian and Indian institutions, showcasing its broader impact on strengthening research capacities across borders.

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.