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.

Organisational benefits of undertaking research in healthcare: an approach to uncover impact.

There is increasing focus to review the societal impact of research through assessment and research excellence frameworks. These often link to financial and reputational incentives within the academic community. However, timeframes to demonstrate impact using these approaches are often long and are not designed to show benefit to service collaborators who require evidence of improvement and change to their services more immediately. Impacts that are measured this way may also miss out on unintended and positive impacts that occur as by-products of research, or through the 'ripple effect' that research may have on practice. Importantly, demonstrating how research makes a difference can improve the research culture in services, and motivations in service partners to become, and stay involved in research. This article describes, and provides access to, a tool called VICTOR (making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research) that was developed by a community of practice involving 12 NHS organisations through blending evidence from the literature, practice and service users. We describe the types of impact that have been collected by VICTOR and explore how collecting impact in this way might help research-practice partnerships and inform research methodologies and may be useful to show impacts alongside, and shortly after the research process.

Using the making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research (VICTOR) questionnaire to evaluate the benefits of a fellowship programme for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing emphasis in the UK on developing a nurse, midwife and allied health professional (NMAHP) workforce that conducts research. Training for clinical academic careers is provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). However, the low number of successful applicants suggested there were barriers to achieving this. The Centre for Nursing and Midwifery Led Research (CNMR) launched a fellowship programme in 2016 to backfill two days a week of NMAHPs' time for up to a year, to give them time to make competitive applications to the NIHR. AIM: To report a study evaluating the CNMR fellowship programme. DISCUSSION: The making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research (VICTOR) tool ( Cooke et al 2019 ) was developed to describe the organisational impact of research. The 2016-17 CNMR fellows completed VICTOR and their responses were analysed using a framework approach. The analysis found the main benefits of participating in the programme were protected time for research, opportunities to develop collaborations, increasing intra- and inter-professional awareness of NMAHPs' research, peer-reviewed publications, and conference presentations. Challenges included a lack of support from line managers, limited value placed on NMAHPs' research and failure to backfill posts. CONCLUSION: There were some challenges with the fellowship programme, but all recipients found it to be a positive experience and undertook significant scholarly activity. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A contractual agreement must be established to foster committed partnerships between higher education institutions (HEIs) and the NHS. HEIs and the NHS should conduct frank discussions of the challenges encountered in fellowship programmes. Positive initiatives and outcomes in tertiary education and clinical settings should be shared to improve fellows' experiences and enhance partnerships between HEIs and the NHS. Job descriptions should include time allocation to review fellowship candidates' applications regardless of outcome. The showcasing of research successes and the benefits of NMAHP research must evolve to secure organisational 'buy in', which is the precursor to widening access to clinical academic pathways.

Leading co-production in five UK collaborative research partnerships (2008-2018): responses to four tensions from senior leaders using auto-ethnography.

BACKGROUND: Despite growing enthusiasm for co-production in healthcare services and research, research on co-production practices is lacking. Multiple frameworks, guidelines and principles are available but little empirical research is conducted on 'how to do' co-production of research to improve healthcare services. This paper brings together insights from UK-based collaborative research partnerships on leading co-production. Its aim is to inform practical guidance for new partnerships planning to facilitate the co-production of applied health research in the future. METHODS: Using an auto-ethnographic approach, experiential evidence was elicited through collective sense making from recorded conversations between the research team and senior leaders of five UK-based collaborative research partnerships. This approach applies a cultural analysis and interpretation of the leaders' behaviours, thoughts and experiences of co-production taking place in 2008-2018 and involving academics, health practitioners, policy makers and representatives of third sector organisations. RESULTS: The findings highlight a variety of practices across CLAHRCs, whereby the intersection between the senior leaders' vision and local organisational context in which co-production occurs largely determines the nature of co-production process and outcomes. We identified four tensions in doing co-production: (1) idealistic, tokenistic vs realistic narratives, (2) power differences and (lack of) reciprocity, (3) excluding vs including language and communication, (4) individual motivation vs structural issues. CONCLUSIONS: The tensions were productive in helping collaborative research partnerships to tailor co-production practices to their local needs and opportunities. Resulting variation in co-production practices across partnerships can therefore be seen as highly advantageous creative adaptation, which makes us question the utility of seeking a unified 'gold standard' of co-production. Strategic leadership is an important starting point for finding context-tailored solutions; however, development of more distributed forms of leadership over time is needed to facilitate co-production practices between partners. Facilitating structures for co-production can enable power sharing and boost capacity and capability building, resulting in more inclusive language and communication and, ultimately, more credible practices of co-production in research. We provide recommendations for creating more realistic narratives around co-production and facilitating power sharing between partners.

Changing the culture: a qualitative study exploring research capacity in local government.

BACKGROUND: Local government has become a key constituent for addressing health inequalities and influencing the health of individuals and communities in England. Lauded as an effective approach to tackle the multiple determinants of health, there are concerns that generating and utilising research evidence to inform decision-making and action is a challenge. This research was conducted in a local authority situated in the north of England and addressed the research question - 'What is the capacity to collaborate and deliver research?'. The study explored the assets that exist to foster a stronger research culture, identified barriers and opportunities for developing research capacity, and how a sustainable research system could be developed to impact on local residents' health and reduce health inequalities. METHODS: This was a qualitative study utilising semi-structured interviews and focus groups. The study used an embedded researcher (ER) who was digitally embedded within the local authority for four months to conduct the data collection. Senior Managers were purposively sampled from across the local authority to take part in interviews. Three focus groups included representation from across the local authority. Framework analysis was conducted to develop the themes which were informed by the Research Capacity Development framework. RESULTS: Tensions between research led decision making and the political and cultural context of local government were identified as a barrier to developing research which addressed health inequalities. Research was not prioritised through an organisational strategy and was led sporadically by research active employees. A recognition across leaders that a culture shift to an organisation which used research evidence to develop policy and commission services was needed. Building relationships and infrastructure across local government, place-based collaborators and academic institutions was required. The embedded researcher approach is one method of developing these relationships. The study identifies the strengths and assets that are embedded in the organisational make-up and the potential areas for development. CONCLUSION: Research leadership is required in local government to create a culture of evidence-based principles and policy. The embedded research model has high utility in gaining depth of information and recognising contextual and local factors which would support research capacity development.

Understanding the value of a PhD for post-doctoral registered UK nurses: A survey.

AIMS: This study investigated, 'What is the perceived value of a PhD to doctoral and postdoctoral nurses in the UK?' BACKGROUND: Little is known about what happens to the careers of nurses who undertake a doctorate and whether they use these skills in the next career steps. METHODS: Nurses (n = 47) with doctorates were recruited via professional networks and twitter (@NMAHP_DoctorateStudy). Qualitative responses from the nurses were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes emerged from qualitative analysis: impact on career, utilization and value, and impact on self. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides one of the few insights into how doctoral trained nurses understand and experience the value and utility of their studies to themselves and others. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSE MANAGEMENT: Nurse managers can play a crucial role in generating a research-led culture within their clinical setting. This would include promoting an understanding of research as something directly related to patient benefit rather than an abstract, intellectual activity.

Hospital training and preparedness of parents and carers in paediatric tracheostomy care: A mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Within the UK, the majority of paediatric tracheostomy care is delivered by parents and carers at home. To facilitate this, extensive in-hospital training is delivered by a variety of health care professionals. Our goal was to assess carer perceptions of this process and highlight areas in which we can further improve our service and the training for other hospital providers of paediatric tracheostomy care. METHODS: A mixed method approach was adopted. In Phase I, qualitative data from five semi-structured interviews with carers of children with a tracheostomy were thematically analysed and subsequently used to develop a questionnaire. In Phase II, the piloted questionnaire was distributed via telephone, email or post to all eligible caregivers who had been tracheostomy trained at GOSH in the last three years (n = 92). Qualitative and quantitative data were analysed using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics respectively. RESULTS: Thirty-five completed questionnaires were received (38% response rate). Overall participants were highly satisfied with the training provided (mean score 8.42 on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest)). Carer identified areas requiring improvement were caregiver education pre-tracheostomy; emergency and complication training; supervision and training post hospital discharge; training schedule; emotional support; and support from community healthcare teams. These findings led to multiple subsequent interventions to further improve the carer training programme including training videos, psychology provision on request and increased community training. CONCLUSION: Although the evaluation of the service revealed high participant satisfaction in home carer training overall, in-depth analysis of caregivers' experiences indicated common themes in the tracheostomy training service where further support would be beneficial. A carer-centred rather than health professional focus on training needs will allow future attention to be directed to areas of need identified by carers themselves as important to improve the tracheostomy training programme.

Building Research Capacity for Impact in Applied Health Services Research Partnerships Comment on "Experience of Health Leadership in Partnering With University-Based Researchers in Canada - A Call to "Re-imagine" Research".

Bowen and colleagues ask us to re-imagine how to conduct research in academic-practice partnerships, and to develop capacity in the applied research and health workforce to do this. This commentary reinforces their messages, and describes a framework of research capacity development for impact (RCDi) which emphasizes active and continuous experiential learning within research partnerships. The RCDi framework includes the need to focus on multiple levels in the collaboration architecture, and describes principles of working that aims to increase impact on services, and learning opportunities for all partners.

Developing a consolidated research framework for clinical allied health professionals practising in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) form a significant part of the healthcare workforce and have great potential to improve services through research and research-informed practice. However, there is a lack of tradition in research embedded in practice in these professional groups. Barriers include clinical caseload pressures, a lack of sustainable training and consequent lack of confidence in practitioners. Practice managers are ill-equipped to monitor and guide staff research development. The modern healthcare system is a multi-disciplinary environment focused on the needs of the patient. A common framework across all AHP disciplines, offering equality in research knowledge and skills and shared language, might be helpful in planning and developing clinical career pathways. Our aim is to develop a consolidated research framework to help AHPs to plan and guide research activity throughout their career. METHODS: The study was conducted in three phases. Phase one identified existing AHP research frameworks (AHPRF) through expert consultations and literature searches. Phase two involved framework analysis of the AHPRFs to develop a single consolidated framework. Phase three included a workshop with experts to validate and adapt the framework for practice. RESULTS: Nineteen AHPRFs were identified. A consolidated framework was shaped by analysis of the AHPRFs resulting in a consolidated framework of eight sections, each containing a series of statements. Each section relates to an analytic theme within the framework analysis, and the statements were based on sub-categories of themes. The final framework was further shaped by the phase three workshop into a set of 'stem' statements that can be adapted to reflect different levels of expertise and the inclusion of a set of guiding principles developed through expert consultation. CONCLUSION: The consolidated framework was entitled 'Shaping Better Practice Through Research: A Practitioner Framework' by stakeholders, thus emphasising its ambition to embed research activity into practice. It instigates a new perspective within AHP research by offering practitioners and managers a tool that can be applied across public, private, and voluntary settings for AHPs in all disciplines. Its ambition is to develop capacity in the AHPs that can undertake research to improve services and the health of service users.

What is a research derived actionable tool, and what factors should be considered in their development? A Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Research findings should be disseminated appropriately to generate maximum impact. The development of research derived 'actionable' tools (RDAT) as research outputs may contribute to impact in health services and health systems research. However there is little agreement on what is meant by actionable tool or what can make them useful. We set out to develop a consensus definition of what is meant by a RDAT and to identify characteristics of a RDAT that would support its use across the research-practice boundary. METHODS: A modified Delphi method was used with a panel of 33 experts comprising of researchers, research funders, policy makers and practitioners. Three rounds were administered including an initial workshop, followed by two online surveys comprising of Likert scales supplemented with open-ended questions. Consensus was defined at 75% agreement. RESULTS: Consensus was reached for the definition and characteristics of RDATs, and on considerations that might maximize their use. The panel also agreed how RDATs could become integral to primary research methods, conduct and reporting. A typology of RDATs did not reach consensus. CONCLUSIONS: A group of experts agreed a definition and characteristics of RDATs that are complementary to peer reviewed publications. The importance of end users shaping such tools was seen as of paramount importance. The findings have implications for research funders to resource such outputs in funding calls. The research community might consider developing and applying skills to coproduce RDATs with end users as part of the research process. Further research is needed on tracking the impact of RDATs, and defining a typology with a range of end-users.

Uncovering the mechanisms of research capacity development in health and social care: a realist synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Research capacity development (RCD) is considered fundamental to closing the evidence-practice gap, thereby contributing to health, wealth and knowledge for practice. Numerous frameworks and models have been proposed for RCD, but there is little evidence of what works for whom and under what circumstances. There is a need to identify mechanisms by which candidate interventions or clusters of interventions might achieve RCD and contribute to societal impact, thereby proving meaningful to stakeholders. METHODS: A realist synthesis was used to develop programme theories for RCD. Structured database searches were conducted across seven databases to identify papers examining RCD in a health or social care context (1998-2013). In addition, citation searches for 10 key articles (citation pearls) were conducted across Google Scholar and Web of Science. Of 214 included articles, 116 reported on specific interventions or initiatives or their evaluation. The remaining 98 articles were discussion papers or explicitly sought to make a theoretical contribution. A core set of 36 RCD theoretical and conceptual papers were selected and analysed to generate mechanisms that map across macro contexts (individual, team, organisational, network). Data were extracted by means of 'If-Then' statements into an Excel spreadsheet. Models and frameworks were deconstructed into their original elements. RESULTS: Eight overarching programme theories were identified featuring mechanisms that were triggered across multiple contexts. Three of these fulfilled a symbolic role in signalling the importance of RCD (e.g. positive role models, signal importance, make a difference), whilst the remainder were more functional (e.g. liberate talents, release resource, exceed sum of parts, learning by doing and co-production of knowledge). Outcomes from one mechanism produced changes in context to stimulate mechanisms in other activities. The eight programme theories were validated with findings from 10 systematic reviews (2014-2017). CONCLUSIONS: This realist synthesis is the starting point for constructing an RCD framework shaped by these programme theories. Future work is required to further test and refine these findings against empirical data from intervention studies.

'Collective making' as knowledge mobilisation: the contribution of participatory design in the co-creation of knowledge in healthcare.

The discourse in healthcare Knowledge Mobilisation (KMb) literature has shifted from simple, linear models of research knowledge production and action to more iterative and complex models. These aim to blend multiple stakeholders' knowledge with research knowledge to address the research-practice gap. It has been suggested there is no 'magic bullet', but that a promising approach to take is knowledge co-creation in healthcare, particularly if a number of principles are applied. These include systems thinking, positioning research as a creative enterprise with human experience at its core, and paying attention to process within the partnership. This discussion paper builds on this proposition and extends it beyond knowledge co-creation to co-designing evidenced based interventions and implementing them. Within a co-design model, we offer a specific approach to share, mobilise and activate knowledge, that we have termed 'collective making'. We draw on KMb, design, wider literature, and our experiences to describe how this framework supports and extends the principles of co-creation offered by Geenhalgh et al. [1] in the context of the state of the art of knowledge mobilisation. We describe how collective making creates the right 'conditions' for knowledge to be mobilised particularly addressing issues relating to stakeholder relationships, helps to discover, share and blend different forms of knowledge from different stakeholders, and puts this blended knowledge to practical use allowing stakeholders to learn about the practical implications of knowledge use and to collectively create actionable products. We suggest this collective making has three domains of influence: on the participants; on the knowledge discovered and shared; and on the mobilisation or activation of this knowledge.

How do NHS organisations plan research capacity development? Strategies, strengths, and opportunities for improvement.

Research that is integral into a 'learning healthcare system' can promote cost effective services and knowledge creation. As such, research is defined as a 'core function' in UK health service organisations, and is often planned through research and development (R&D) strategies that aim to promote research activity and research capacity development (RCD). The discussion focuses around the content of ten R&D strategies for healthcare organisations in England and Scotland, with respect to RCD. These organisations were engaged with a research interest network called ACORN (Addressing Organisational Capacity to do Research Network) that included two Scottish Health Boards, four community and mental health trusts, two provincial district hospitals, and two teaching hospitals. We undertook a thematic documentary analysis of the R&D strategies which identified 11 'core activities' of RCD. The potential for building research capacity in these 'core activities' was established by reviewing them through the lens of a RCD framework. Core activities aimed to 'hard wire' RCD into health organisations. They demonstrated a complex interplay between developing a strong internal organisational infrastructure, and supporting individual career planning and skills development, in turn enabled by organisational processes. They also included activities to build stronger inter-organisational relationships and networks. Practitioner, manager and patient involvement was a cross cutting theme. The potential to demonstrate progress was included in plans through monitoring activity across all RCD principles. Strategies were primarily aimed at research production rather than research use. Developing 'actionable dissemination' was poorly addressed in the strategies, and represents an area for improvement. We describe strengths of RCD planning activities, and opportunities for improvement. We explore how national policy and research funders can influence health systems' engagement in research.

"Seeing" the Difference: The Importance of Visibility and Action as a Mark of "Authenticity" in Co-production Comment on "Collaboration and Co-production of Knowledge in Healthcare: Opportunities and Challenges".

The Rycroft-Malone paper states that co-production relies on 'authentic' collaboration as a context for action. Our commentary supports and extends this assertion. We suggest that 'authentic' co-production involves processes where participants can 'see' the difference that they have made within the project and beyond. We provide examples including: the use of design in health projects which seek to address power issues and make contributions visible through iteration and prototyping; and the development of 'actionable outputs' from research that are the physical embodiment of co-production. Finally, we highlight the elements of the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) architecture that enables the inclusion of such collaborative techniques that demonstrate visible co-production. We reinforce the notion that maintaining collaboration requires time, flexible resources, blurring of knowledge producer-user boundaries, and leaders who promote epistemological tolerance and methodological exploration.

Squaring the circle: a priority-setting method for evidence-based service development, reconciling research with multiple stakeholder views.

BACKGROUND: This study demonstrates a technique to aid the implementation of research findings through an example of improving services and self-management in longer-term depression. In common with other long-term conditions, policy in this field requires innovation to be undertaken in the context of a whole system of care, be cost-effective, evidence-based and to comply with national clinical guidelines. At the same time, successful service development must be acceptable to clinicians and service users and choices must be made within limited resources. This paper describes a novel way of resolving these competing requirements by reconciling different sources and types of evidence and systematically engaging multiple stakeholder views. METHODS: The study combined results from mathematical modelling of the care pathway, research evidence on effective interventions and findings from qualitative research with service users in a series of workshops to define, refine and select candidate service improvements. A final consensus-generating workshop used structured discussion and anonymised electronic voting. This was followed by an email survey to all stakeholders, to achieve a pre-defined criterion of consensus for six suggestions for implementation. RESULTS: An initial list of over 20 ideas was grouped into four main areas. At the final workshop, each idea was presented in person, visually and in writing to 40 people, who assigned themselves to one or more of five stakeholder groups: i) service users and carers, ii) clinicians, iii) managers, iv) commissioners and v) researchers. Many belonged to more than one group. After two rounds of voting, consensus was reached on seven ideas and one runner up. The survey then confirmed the top six ideas to be tested in practice. CONCLUSIONS: The method recruited and retained people with diverse experience and views within a health community and took account of a full range of evidence. It enabled a diverse group of stakeholders to travel together in a direction that converged with the messages coming out of the research and successfully yielded priorities for service improvement that met competing requirements.

On-going collaborative priority-setting for research activity: a method of capacity building to reduce the research-practice translational gap.

BACKGROUND: International policy suggests that collaborative priority setting (CPS) between researchers and end users of research should shape the research agenda, and can increase capacity to address the research-practice translational gap. There is limited research evidence to guide how this should be done to meet the needs of dynamic healthcare systems. One-off priority setting events and time-lag between decision and action prove problematic. This study illustrates the use of CPS in a UK research collaboration called Collaboration and Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC). METHODS: Data were collected from a north of England CLAHRC through semi-structured interviews with 28 interviewees and a workshop of key stakeholders (n = 21) including academics, NHS clinicians, and managers. Documentary analysis of internal reports and CLAHRC annual reports for the first two and half years was also undertaken. These data were thematically coded. RESULTS: Methods of CPS linked to the developmental phase of the CLAHRC. Early methods included pre-existing historical partnerships with on-going dialogue. Later, new platforms for on-going discussions were formed. Consensus techniques with staged project development were also used. All methods demonstrated actual or potential change in practice and services. Impact was enabled through the flexibility of research and implementation work streams; 'matched' funding arrangements to support alignment of priorities in partner organisations; the size of the collaboration offering a resource to meet project needs; and the length of the programme providing stability and long term relationships. Difficulties included tensions between being responsive to priorities and the possibility of 'drift' within project work, between academics and practice, and between service providers and commissioners in the health services. Providing protected 'matched' time proved difficult for some NHS managers, which put increasing work pressure on them. CPS is more time consuming than traditional approaches to project development. CONCLUSIONS: CPS can produce needs-led projects that are bedded in services using a variety of methods. Contributing factors for effective CPS include flexibility in use and type of available resources, flexible work plans, and responsive leadership. The CLAHRC model provides a translational infrastructure that enables CPS that can impact on healthcare systems.