For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
7
views
52
references
 Top references
cited by
27
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      134
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Key factors influencing allied health research capacity in a large Australian metropolitan health district

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          The aim of this study was to identify key factors affecting research capacity and engagement of allied health professionals working in a large metropolitan health service. Identifying such factors will assist in determining strategies for building research capacity in allied health.

          Materials and methods

          A total of 276 allied health professionals working within the Sydney Local Health District (SLHD) completed the Research Capacity in Context Tool (RCCT) that measures research capacity and culture across three domains: organization, team, and individual. An exploratory factor analysis was undertaken to identify common themes within each of these domains. Correlations were performed between demographic variables and the identified factors to determine possible relationships.

          Results

          Research capacity and culture success/skill levels were reported to be higher within the organization and team domains compared to the individual domain (median [interquartile range, IQR] 6 [5–8], 6 [5–8], 5 [3–7], respectively; Friedman χ 2(2)=42.04, p<0.001). Exploratory factor analyses were performed to identify factors that were perceived by allied health respondents to affect research capacity. Factors identified within the organization domain were infrastructure for research (eg, funds and equipment) and research culture (eg, senior manager’s support for research); within the team domain the factors were research orientation (eg, dissemination of results at research seminars) and research support (eg, providing staff research training). Within the individual domain, only one factor was identified which was the research skill of the individual (eg, literature evaluation, submitting ethics applications and data analysis, and writing for publication).

          Conclusion

          The reported skill/success levels in research were lower for the individual domain compared to the organization or team domains. Key factors were identified in each domain that impacted on allied health research capacity. As these factors were different in each domain, various strategies may be required at the level of the organization, team, and individual to support and build allied health research capacity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Motivators, enablers, and barriers to building allied health research capacity

          Susan Pager, Libby Holden, Xanthe Golenko (2012)
          Purpose A sound, scientific base of high quality research is needed to inform service planning and decision making and enable improved policy and practice. However, some areas of health practice, particularly many of the allied health areas, are generally considered to have a low evidence base. In order to successfully build research capacity in allied health, a clearer understanding is required of what assists and encourages research as well as the barriers and challenges. Participants and methods This study used written surveys to collect data relating to motivators, enablers, and barriers to research capacity building. Respondents were asked to answer questions relating to them as individuals and other questions relating to their team. Allied health professionals were recruited from multidisciplinary primary health care teams in Queensland Health. Eighty-five participants from ten healthcare teams completed a written version of the research capacity and culture survey. Results The results of this study indicate that individual allied health professionals are more likely to report being motivated to do research by intrinsic factors such as a strong interest in research. Barriers they identified to research are more likely to be extrinsic factors such as workload and lack of time. Allied health professionals identified some additional factors that impact on their research capacity than those reported in the literature, such as a desire to keep at the “cutting edge” and a lack of exposure to research. Some of the factors influencing individuals to do research were different to those influencing teams. These results are discussed with reference to organizational behavior and theories of motivation. Conclusion Supporting already motivated allied health professional individuals and teams to conduct research by increased skills training, infrastructure, and quarantined time is likely to produce better outcomes for research capacity building investment.
          Article 0 comments Cited 55 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Validation of the research capacity and culture (RCC) tool: measuring RCC at individual, team and organisation levels.

            Libby Holden, Susan Pager, Robert S Ware … (2011)
            Research capacity building (RCB) in Australia has recently focussed on strategies that take a whole of system approach to developing research culture at individual, team and organisation levels. Although a theoretical framework exists, no tool has been published that quantitatively measures the effectiveness of RCB interventions aimed at these three levels. A sample of 134 allied health workers was used to validate the research capacity and culture (RCC) tool. Item level analysis was undertaken using Cronbach's α and exploratory factor analysis, and test-retest reliability was examined using intra-class correlations (ICC). The tool had one factor emerge for each domain, with excellent internal consistency for organisation, team and individual domains (α=0.95, 0.96 and 0.96 respectively; and factor loadings ranges of 0.58-0.89, 0.65-0.89 and 0.59-0.93 respectively). The overall mean score (total) for each domain was: 5.4 (inter-quartile range 3.9-7.7), 4.4 (IQR 2.6-6.1) and 3.9 (IQR 2.9-6) for the organisation, team and individual domains respectively. Test-retest reliability was strong for each domain: organisation ICC=0.77, team ICC=0.83 and individual ICC=0.82. The RCC tool has three domains measuring research capacity and culture at organisation, team and individual levels. It demonstrates excellent internal consistency and strong test-retest reliability.
            Article 0 comments Cited 44 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

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

              Rachel Wenke, Sharon Mickan (2016)
              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. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1606-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Article 0 comments Cited 36 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Multidiscip Healthc
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Multidiscip Healthc
                Journal ID (publisher-id): Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
                Title: Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
                Publisher: Dove Medical Press
                ISSN (Electronic): 1178-2390
                Publication date Collection: 2017
                Publication date (Electronic): 09 August 2017
                Volume: 10
                Pages: 277-291
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Health Sciences Discipline of Physiotherapy, University of Sydney
                [2 ]Allied Health Professorial Unit, Sydney Local Health District
                [3 ]Faculty of Health Sciences, Discipline of Behavioral and Social Sciences in Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Jennifer A Alison, Faculty of Health Sciences Discipline of Physiotherapy, University of Sydney, Cumberland Campus, PO Box 170, Lidcombe, Sydney, NSW 1825, Australia, Tel +61 2 9351 9371, Fax +61 2 9351 9601, Email jennifer.alison@ 123456sydney.edu.au
                Article
                Publisher ID: jmdh-10-277
                DOI: 10.2147/JMDH.S142009
                PMC ID: 5558427
                PubMed ID: 28860795
                SO-VID: d3def778-9ac5-4bd6-87e5-c758ccb3dfc3
                Copyright © © 2017 Alison et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited
                License:

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                History
                Categories
                Subject: Original Research

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine
                Keywords: research culture,organization,team,individual
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine
                Keywords: research culture, organization, team, individual

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content134

                See all similar

                Cited by26

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors939

                See all reference authors