Development of a framework and research impact capture tool for nursing, midwifery, allied health professions, healthcare science, pharmacy and psychology (NMAHPPs).

BACKGROUND: There is an ambitious target to create a UK clinical academic workforce representing 1% of clinicians from nursing, midwifery, the allied health professions, healthcare science, pharmacy and psychology (NMAHPPs). Understanding and recording the impact that clinical academics make across healthcare services is crucial if we are to grow, value and support this highly skilled workforce group. However, it is currently difficult to systematically record, collate and report the impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. The aims of this project were to i) develop a framework outlining the impacts that were important for key stakeholder groups, and ii) create and pilot a research impact capture tool to record these impacts. METHODS: The framework was developed from the existing literature. It was refined, remodelled and approved by multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement, including patient and public representatives, healthcare managers and research-active clinicians. The framework was converted into a series of questions to create an electronic research impact capture tool, which was also refined through feedback from these stakeholder groups. The impact capture tool was piloted with research-active clinicians across a large NHS Trust and its associated organisations. RESULTS: The impact framework contained eight elements: clinical background, research and service improvement activities, research capacity building, research into practice, patients and service users, research dissemination, economics and research funding, and collaborations. Thirty individuals provided data for the research impact capture tool pilot (55% response rate). Respondents reported a range of positive impacts representing all elements of the framework. Importantly, research-activity appeared to be a key driver for recruitment and retention in the sample population. CONCLUSIONS: The impact capture tool is a feasible method of recording the breadth of impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. We encourage other organisations to collaboratively use and refine our impact capture tool, with the aim of standardising reporting, and facilitating discussions about research activity within clinical appraisal. Pooling and comparing data will also allow comparison between organisations, and assessment of change over time or after implementation of interventions aimed at supporting and increasing research activity.

Preparation of crosslinked chitosan magnetic membrane for cations sorption from aqueous solution.

A chitosan magnetic membrane was prepared in order to confer magnetic properties to the membrane, which could be used for the removal of cations from aqueous solution. The crosslinked magnetic membrane was compared with pristine chitosan membrane in term of stability, morphology and cation adsorption capacity. The fabricated magnetic materials are thermally stable as shown by thermogravimetric curves. The membrane containing nickel magnetic particles (CHNiF-G) shows high thermal stability compared to the other membranes. The Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy showed successful preparation of chitosan magnetic membrane. Scanning electron microscopy micrographs showed the rough surface of the membrane with increased porosity. The prepared chitosan membranes were applied to cations of copper, nickel and lead in dilute aqueous solution. The chitosan membrane showed the following adsorption order for metallic cations: Cu2+ > Ni2+ > Pb2+, while CHNiF-G showed higher capacity, 3.51 mmol g-1 for copper, reflecting the improvement in adsorption capacity, since the amount of copper on pristine chitosan gave 1.40 mmol g-1. The time required for adsorption to reach to the equilibrium was 6 h for the selected cations using different chitosan membranes. The kinetic study showed that adsorption followed pseudo-second order kinetics. The most commonly used isotherm models, Freundlich, Langmuir and Temkin, were applied to experimental data using linear regression technique. However, The Temkin model fits better to experimental data.

Evaluating a grant development public involvement funding scheme: a qualitative document analysis.

BACKGROUND: Undertaking Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) when developing health and social care research grant applications is critical. However, researchers may not have any funding to undertake PPI when developing grants. In response, the National Institute for Health and Care Research- Research Design Service for Yorkshire and the Humber in the United Kingdom, provided Public Involvement Fund Awards of up to £600 to fund PPI activity when researchers were developing grant applications. Researchers provided post-activity reports about how they utilised the Public Involvement Fund. These reports were analysed with the aim of evaluating the usefulness of the Public Involvement Fund and to provide learning about supporting researchers to undertake PPI when developing grants. METHODS: The project was a qualitative document analysis of 55 reports. Initially a researcher coded four reports and three Public Contributors provided feedback. Researchers coded the remaining reports and identified key findings. A workshop was held with the three Public Contributors to develop the findings. RESULTS: Researchers accessing the Public Involvement Fund award were generally early career researchers or clinicians who did not have other sources of funding for pre-grant PPI input. Researchers felt the award was useful in enabling them to conduct PPI, which strengthened their grant applications. Some researchers found that the award limit of £600 and guidance encouraging expenditure within three months, made it difficult to undertake PPI throughout the full grant development process. Instead, the majority of researchers consulted Public Contributors on one or two occasions. Researchers struggled to recruit diverse members or run group sessions due to the time pressures of grant deadlines. Researchers wanted training on undertaking PPI alongside the financial support. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers, especially early career researchers found having a Public Involvement Fund award instrumental in enabling them to undertake PPI when developing grant applications. It would be beneficial for similar schemes to be widely available. Schemes need to provide sufficient funding to enable meaningful PPI and allow researchers to hold the award for long enough to facilitate involvement during the whole grant development process. Researchers continue to need training on undertaking PPI.

Undertaking Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) when developing health and social care research grant applications is important. This ensures that patients have a voice in deciding what topics are researched. However, researchers often do not have funding to undertake PPI when developing grants. In response, a regional research advice service in the United Kingdom established a small grant scheme (up to £600) to fund PPI activity. This was called the Public Involvement Fund (PIF). Researchers developing health and social care grant applications could apply. After spending the funding, researchers wrote reports to explain how they used the Public Involvement Fund and the challenges they faced. We analysed 55 reports submitted over a three-year period to understand researchers' experiences of the fund. Researchers found the funding critical in enabling them to undertake PPI. Many felt their grants were improved from consulting Public Contributors. For example, helping them to decide a topic, changing their research method or choosing a questionnaire. However, researchers sometimes struggled to recruit Public Contributors, particularly when the research was not about a specific health condition. Researchers wanted to be able to have the award for long enough to enable them to involve Public Contributors throughout the whole grant development process. Alongside funding, researchers also need specific training about undertaking PPI when developing grants. For example, how to recruit representative Public Contributors quickly. It is recommended that similar schemes to the PIF are available to enable researchers to fund PPI activities when developing grant applications.

Clinical effectiveness of point of care tests for diagnosing urinary tract infection: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Point of care tests (POCTs) have the potential to improve the urinary tract infection (UTI) diagnostic pathway, as they can provide a diagnosis quickly in near-patient settings, and some also identify causative pathogens/antimicrobial sensitivity. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical impact, accuracy, and technical characteristics of POCT for diagnosing UTI. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Narrative summary and bivariate random effects meta-analyses to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity. DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases, two clinical trial registries, study reports and review reference lists, and websites. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials/non-randomized studies and diagnostic test accuracy studies published since 2000. PARTICIPANTS: People with suspected UTI. TESTS: Rapid tests (results <40 minutes): Astrego PA-100 system, Lodestar DX, Uriscreen, UTRiPLEX. Culture tests (results <24 hours): Flexicult Human, ID Flexicult, Diaslide, Dipstreak, Chromostreak, Uricult, Uricult Trio, Uricult Plus. REFERENCE STANDARD: Any. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Risk of Bias-2, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-C. RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials evaluated Flexicult Human (one against standard care; one against ID Flexicult). No difference was reported in antibiotic use concordant with culture results (OR 0.84 95% CI 0.58-1.20) or appropriate antibiotic prescribing (OR 1.44 95% CI 1.03-1.99). Initial antibiotic prescribing was lower with Flexicult than standard care (OR 0.56 95% CI 0.35-0.88). No difference for other measures of antibiotic use, symptom duration, patient enablement, or resource use. Fifteen studies reported accuracy data. Limited data were available, with most POCT evaluated in single studies or not evaluated at all. Uriscreen (four studies), Uricult Trio (three studies), Flexicult Human (four studies), and ID Flexicult (two studies) had modest sensitivity and specificity. POCTs were easier to use and interpret than standard culture. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of POCTs in UTI diagnosis. Due to the rapid development of POCT, this review should be updated regularly.

Incorporation of patient and public involvement in statistical methodology research: a survey assessing current practices and attitudes of researchers.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) ensures that research is designed and conducted in a manner that is most beneficial to the individuals whom it will impact. It has an undisputed place in applied research and is required by many funding bodies. However, PPI in statistical methodology research is more challenging and work is needed to identify where and how patients and the public can meaningfully input in this area. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional research study was conducted using an online questionnaire, which asked statistical methodologists about themselves and their experience conducting PPI, either to inform a grant application or during a funded statistical methodology project. The survey included both closed-text responses, which were reported using summary statistics, and open-ended questions for which common themes were identified. RESULTS: 119 complete responses were recorded. Individuals who completed the survey displayed an even range of ages, career lengths and positions, with the majority working in academia. 40.3% of participants reported undertaking PPI to inform a grant application and the majority reported that the inclusion of PPI was received positively by the funder. Only 21.0% of participants reported undertaking PPI during a methodological project. 31.0% of individuals thought that PPI was "very" or "extremely" relevant to statistical methodology research, with 45.5% responding "somewhat" and 24.4% answering "not at all" or "not very". Arguments for including PPI were that it can provide the motivation for research and shape the research question. Negative opinions included that it is too technical for the public to understand, so they cannot have a meaningful impact. CONCLUSIONS: This survey found that the views of statistical methodologists on the inclusion of PPI in their research are varied, with some individuals having particularly strong opinions, both positive and negative. Whilst this is clearly a divisive topic, one commonly identified theme was that many researchers are willing to try and incorporate meaningful PPI into their research but would feel more confident if they had access to resources such as specialised training, guidelines, and case studies.

Patient and public involvement (or PPI) means researchers working in partnership with patients and the public in any part of research. It can include helping decide what the research question is, how to pass on results to the public, and telling researchers what areas are most important to patients and the public. Statistical methods are the tools we use to analyse data. Statistical methodology research involves making sure these tools use our healthcare data in the best way. PPI is essential in health research and is becoming more common in statistical methodology research. But it can be hard to know how to include patients and the public in statistical methodology research. It may seem complex and not directly related to patients. This paper describes the results from a survey we did about the experiences of researchers who have carried out PPI for statistical methodology research. We asked them what they think about it, and how it affects their research. We also asked if they feel confident including PPI in their research, and whether they are given enough help. Researchers had different views about PPI for statistical methodology research. Some people thought PPI was very important in their research, but others weren't sure. Many people said that they would like more help such as training and guidelines to help them do better PPI in the future.

Bedtime Smart Phone Usage and Its Effects on Work-Related Behaviour at Workplace.

The over usage and over dependency on digital devices, like smartphones, has been considered as a growing international epidemic. The increased dependency on gadgets, especially smartphones for personal and official uses, has also brought many detrimental effects on individual users. Hence it is vital to understand the negative effects of smartphone usage on human. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the effects of bedtime smartphone usage on work performances, interpersonal conflicts, and work engagement, via the mediating role of sleep quality among employees. Using a cross-sectional study design, a questionnaire-based field survey was conducted on 315 employees who participated as respondents. The results confirmed the negative effects of bedtime smartphone usage on sleep quality. Along with it, the effects of sleep quality on work performances, work engagements and interpersonal conflicts were also proven to be statistically significant. Regarding the mediating role of sleep quality, it was empirically evident that sleep quality mediates the relationship between bedtime smartphone usage with work performances and interpersonal conflicts. The findings revealed that bedtime smartphone usage reduces sleep quality among the employees, resulting in lower work performances and engagements while contributing to higher interpersonal conflicts. The findings concluded that smartphone usage before sleep increases the prospects of employees to be less productive, less engaged, and have more workplace conflicts. The findings warrant the continued managerial as well as academic research attention, as the smartphones are now used by many organisations to run businesses as well.