Exploring research capacity and culture of allied health professionals: a mixed methods evaluation

Terry Cordrey,Elizabeth King,Katie Gore,Emma Pilkington,Owen Gustafson

doi:10.1186/s12913-022-07480-x

Terry Cordrey, Elizabeth King + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07480-x

Copy DOI

Abstract

BackgroundDespite the myriad benefits of research to patients, professionals, and organisations, fewer than 0.1% of the Allied Health Professions workforce are employed in clinical academic roles. Identified barriers include a lack of role modelling, management support, funding, and availability of clinical academic roles. Research capacity building is critical to improving Allied Health Professional research capability. The aim of this evaluation was to explore the current research capacity and culture of Allied Health Professionals to inform future tailored research capacity building strategies at a local level.MethodsA mixed methods evaluation of research capacity and culture was conducted within the Allied Health Professions department of a large National Health Service Foundation Trust using an online research capacity and culture questionnaire, followed by focus groups. Staff were recruited using a purposive method with the questionnaire and subsequent focus groups completed between July and September 2020. Data from the questionnaire was analysed using simple descriptive statistics and after inductive coding, focus group data was analysed thematically.Results93 out of 278 staff completed the questionnaire and 60 staff members attended seven focus groups. The research capacity and culture survey reported the department’s key strength as promoting clinical practice based on evidence (median=8, range=6-9). A key reported weakness of the department was insufficient resources to support staff research training (med=4, 3-6). Respondents considered themselves most skilled in finding relevant literature (med=6, 5-8) and least skilled at securing research funding (med=1, 1-2). Greater than half of the respondents (n=50) reported not currently being involved with research. Five themes were identified from the focus groups: empowerment; building research infrastructure; fostering research skills; access for all; and positive research culture.ConclusionsAllied Health Professionals recognise the benefits of research at teams and departmental level, but marginally at an individual level. Local research capacity building strategies should aim to address the role, responsibilities and barriers to Allied Health Profession research development at an individual level. To ensure all staff can engage, research infrastructure and empowerment are essential.

Highlights

Despite the myriad benefits of research to patients, professionals, and organisations, fewer than 0.1% of the Allied Health Professions workforce are employed in clinical academic roles
For Allied Health Professionals (AHP), the historical position is not known, but the proportion of AHPs currently working in clinical academic roles is approximately 0.1% [8]
Insufficient supply of AHPs into post-doctoral roles perpetuates the current position of a lack of senior clinical academic AHP leaders and decision-makers, which potentially serves to inhibit future AHP research capacity building strategies [14]

Summary

Introduction

Despite the myriad benefits of research to patients, professionals, and organisations, fewer than 0.1% of the Allied Health Professions workforce are employed in clinical academic roles. Research is still viewed as a luxurious pursuit reserved for those who work outside of busy clinical roles [6] This view is potentially re-enforced by a sustained reduction in the capacity of NHS staff to undertake research. The lack of structure, funding, and access to clinical academic career pathways are the most commonly cited barriers to the growth of AHP research capacity [10]. Despite relatively good AHP uptake into early research career awards, progression into doctoral-level study and attaining postdoctoral fellowships was poor [12] The latter has been identified as a key enabling mechanism to achieve a successful clinical academic career [13]. Insufficient supply of AHPs into post-doctoral roles perpetuates the current position of a lack of senior clinical academic AHP leaders and decision-makers, which potentially serves to inhibit future AHP research capacity building strategies [14]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion