Increase Research Capacity Research Articles

In at the Deep End: Innovative approaches to engaging underserved communities in Northern England

Abstract Background People living in socio-economically deprived communities have greater health needs, but worse access and outcomes from care. A growing international movement of Deep End (DE) general practice networks established to promote health equity, address challenges posed by the inverse care law and advocate for increased research involvement. Researchers, community members and practitioners in the North of England are exploring ways of engaging with underserved communities and addressing low levels of inclusion in research. Methods DE research i) co-designing the North East and North Cumbria (NENC) DE network with practitioners to prioritise service investment, research activities and initiatives for local communities; ii) Deep End Research Alliance Yorkshire and Humber (DERA-YH) and Participatory Action Research to increase research capacity and reflect upon the evolution of a novel primary care Community Research Link Worker role (CRLWs). Results Prioritisation activities in the NENC DE network, uncovered the volume and complexity of clinical and social need, leading to the co-design and evaluation of initiatives to improve mental health care, increase childhood immunisations, tailor deprescribing, support training, and increase patient inclusion in research. In the DERA-YH, the CRLW model increased participation in research from ethnic minority communities regarding prostate cancer, lung health, dementia, and contraceptive services. Community leaders stated that sharing resources and power in the research process builds trust and interest in research in their communities. Conclusions DE networks in Northern England have driven innovative approaches to engage underserved communities in research, fostering empowering and enduring relationships to address health and care inequalities. Co-design methodologies and CRLWs integration into research teams had a transformative impact on the accessibility of research for communities and for the researchers’ positionality. Key messages • Deep End networks are advancing approaches to meaningful engagement and partnership working with underserved communities, to address health, care and research participation inequalities. • We recommend co-design by default and CRLW models to build capacity and embed reflective practice, mutual respect, and power sharing across the research team.

Navigating the complexity of a collaborative, system-wide public health programme: learning from a longitudinal qualitative evaluation of the ActEarly City Collaboratory

BackgroundAddressing the upstream social determinants of health (e.g. built environment, education) can reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases. To do so effectively often requires system-wide collaboration. However, collaborating across multiple sectors, organizations and disciplines within a complex system can be challenging. ActEarly was a public health research consortium that aimed to improve child health by building an interdisciplinary, cross-city partnership to develop and/or evaluate upstream interventions, increase research capacity and improve collaboration between researchers, local authorities and communities. This paper explores ActEarly’s experiences of navigating complexity to identify mechanisms that supported its implementation and proposes recommendations for future intersectoral and interdisciplinary population health research collaborations.MethodsWe conducted a longitudinal qualitative study of ActEarly, integrating findings from inductive documentary analysis of internal documents (mainly meetings minutes and reports) (n = 114) and interviews (n = 70) with 45 consortium members at three different timepoints (2018, 2021, 2023). Participants worked across different organizations, cities, roles and levels of seniority in the consortium.FindingsClarity, Unity, Flexibility and Feasibility were seen as the key mechanisms required to support ActEarly’s implementation. Clear aims, governance structures and communication were necessary to manage the uncertainty of the complex system. A unified approach, characterized by strong relationships, having a shared vision and communal access to resources supported effective collaboration. Flexibility was required to adjust to different ways of working, respond to wider system events and manage the consortium. Establishing feasible aims that responded to the limitations of the system, the available resources and research infrastructure was required for teams to deliver the work.ConclusionsImplementing multi-faceted programmes in a complex system can be challenging. We recommend that future whole-systems consortia seeking to improve population health build Clarity, Unity, Flexibility and Feasibility into their programmes, noting the complex interrelationships between these factors. Iterative reflections from all parties should support delivery amidst the uncertainty that comes with running a population health research collaboration, and strong leadership and governance should play a key role in ensuring that these are built into foundations the programme.

Eating Disorder and Autism Collaborative project outline: promoting eating disorder research embedded in a neurodiversity-affirming culture.

EDAC (Eating Disorders and Autism Collaborative) is an innovative project aiming to increase research capacity by supporting collaboration in the fields of eating disorders and autism. EDAC comprises four integrated workstreams to co-produce interdisciplinary research, directed by Autistic individuals with lived experience of eating disorders. Workstream 1 will outline best collaborative practices, informing the research network. Workstream 2 will use arts-based methodologies to set research priorities, with emphasis on the perspectives of underrepresented groups. Workstream 3 will support interdisciplinary collaborations to develop innovative research. Finally, workstream 4 will maximise knowledge mobilisation with the aim of reducing barriers to rapid incorporation of research into policy and clinical practice. A core aim of EDAC is to embed a neurodiversity-affirming culture within eating disorder research and to support the development of a new generation of researchers conducting innovative and meaningful research with the potential to improve clinical outcomes.

Development of a team-specific research strategy using a modified Delphi method in a regional public hospital dietetics department.

Evaluate research capacity and culture among regional hospital dietitians, develop a team specific research strategy, and build research skills of novice researchers. The Research Capacity in Context Tool was used to assess current research capacity and culture at organisational, team and individual levels. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis of free text responses. A modified Delphi method gained consensus regarding research capacity building. Mixed method study. Dietetics department of a regional tertiary hospital (Modified Monash Category 2). All clinical dietitians currently employed within the hospital (n = 20) regardless of employment duration. Self-rated response to research capacity and culture to produce a dietetics-specific research strategy. Fifteen dietitians (75%) completed the Research Capacity in Context Tool. The overall mean score was highest at an organisational level at 7.9 (IQR 2), and lowest at team and individual levels at 4.3 (IQR 2.7) and 4.9 (IQR 3.3) respectively. Common barriers to research included time, lack of skills, knowledge and support. Using the modified Delphi method 39 statements relating to research capacity building met consensus and informed the creation of a research strategy. The results of the Research Capacity in Context Tool from this regional study reflect those reported in the literature at metropolitan sites. A dietetic-specific research strategy was developed to assist with increasing research capacity at a team and individual level in a regional setting. Evaluation of long-term outcomes post implementation will be the subject of further research.

Relevance of learning health systems to physiatrists and its synergy with implementation science: A commentary.

As health care attempts to bridge the gap between evidence and practice, the concept of the learning health system (LHS) is becoming increasingly relevant. LHS integrates evidence with health systems data, driving health care quality and outcomes through updates in policy, practice, and care delivery. In addition, LHS research is becoming critically important as there are several initiatives underway to increase research capacity, expertise, and implementation, including attempts to stimulate increasing numbers of LHS researchers. Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PM&R) physicians (physiatrists), nurses, therapists (physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, clinical psychologists), and scientists are affiliated with LHSs. As LHS research expands in health care systems, better awareness and understanding of LHSs and LHS research competencies are key for rehabilitation professionals including physiatrists. To address this need, the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) identified 33 core competencies, grouped into eight domains, for training LHS researchers. The domains are: (1) Systems Science; (2) Research Questions and Standards of Scientific Evidence; (3) Research Methods; (4) Informatics; (5) Ethics of Research and Implementation in Health Systems; (6) Improvement and Implementation Science; (7) Engagement, Leadership, and Research Management; and the recently added (8) Health and Healthcare Equity and Justice. The purpose of this commentary is to define LHS and its relevance to physiatrists, present the role of implementation science (IS) in LHSs and application of IS principles to design LHSs, illustrate current LHS research in rehabilitation, and discuss potential solutions to improve awareness and to stimulate interest in LHS research and IS among physiatrists in LHSs.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of online research groups in increasing research capacity among young African Family Physicians

ABSTRACT Introduction Low research output is hindering efforts to improve health services in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). AfriWon Research Group of WONCA Africa has established an online collaborative research mentorship and training programme to boost research capacity among Family Physicians in SSA. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of the programme in achieving this goal. Methodology A mixed-method descriptive cross-sectional study was used to interview the 54 members of the 2022 SOGER cohort. Structured questionnaires and key informant interviews of 12 members were used to collect data. Quantitative analysis was done using Epi Info version 7.2.5. Descriptive statistics were used to present data using frequencies and percentages. Qualitative analysis was then done by using Nvivo®. Results The 54 participants practised in 10 SSA countries and were mostly males 28 (51.9%) with a mean age of 41.56 ± 2.04 years. The majority of them 33 (61.1%) have had some form of research experience prior to joining SOGER. Members identified key benefits of the programme as fostering collaboration, mentorship and continuing education 46 (85.2%); and improvement of research skills 33 (61.1%). Barriers identified were poor collaboration and participation among members 37 (68.5%); irregular meeting schedules as a result of the different time zones 18 (33.3%); and poor internet facilities 19 (35.2%). Conclusion The SOGER programme was rated as very effective in increasing the research capacity of young FPs and helping participants engage with other researchers and develop research skills. Identified areas of improvement were difficulty meeting set group targets, irregular meetings and conflicting work schedules.

The Africa non-communicable diseases (NCD) Open Lab: Impact of a portfolio of clinical studies to deepen the understanding of NCDs in sub-Saharan Africa.

Clinical research in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has often focussed on communicable diseases. However, with the increasing burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), there is a need for Africa-specific NCD research. GSK established the Africa NCD Open Lab in 2014. Three calls for proposals were advertised through various media channels. An external independent scientific advisory board, predominantly representing African scientists and NCD experts, reviewed and selected projects to receive funding. An additional programme in the Africa NCD Open Lab was designed to build statistical capability by supporting training initiatives. We assessed the impact of the Africa NCD Open Lab in three ways: scientific quality with impact; research training and professional development; and research environments. We captured metrics through regular reports/interactions with researchers; via a final report; and through exit interviews with principal investigators. Twenty projects in 11 African countries were funded; reports from 18 completed projects are available (data capture is ongoing). Overall, 139 articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals and other data have been presented at conferences and other forums. Most completed projects led to positive outcomes, such as further research, informing policy, or positively impacting clinical care, including three projects that saw changes to regional or national practice guidelines: the CREOLE study in Nigeria; the African Severe Asthma Program in Uganda; and the African Prospective Study on the Early Detection and Identification of Cardiovascular Disease and Hypertension in South Africa. Participation in the Africa NCD Open Lab led to the award of 34 grants related to or influenced by increased research capacity or experience. Significant professional development related to the projects also occurred with higher-level degrees being awarded, including 30 MScs, 30 PhDs, and nine postdoctoral fellowships. Through these projects, research capacity was strengthened across the region by equipping core research facilities, training research staff, strengthening research support services, and supporting the expansion of investigator networks. The completed Africa NCD Open Lab projects demonstrate high-quality research outcomes addressing important health challenges with potential benefits to African populations. Based on the success of the Africa NCD Open Lab, additional funding has been secured to extend the Open Lab initiative.

Using collaborative autoethnography to investigate mentoring relationships for novice engineering education researchers

Abstract Background The National Science Foundation Research Initiation in Engineering Formation (RIEF) program aims to increase research capacity in the field by providing funding for technical engineering faculty to learn to conduct engineering education research through mentorship by an experienced social science researcher. We use collaborative autoethnography to study the tripartite RIEF mentoring relationship between Julie, an experienced engineering education researcher, and two novice education researchers who have backgrounds in biomedical engineering—Paul, a biomedical engineering faculty member and major professor to the second novice, Deepthi, a graduate student. We ground our work in the cognitive apprenticeship model and Eby and colleagues’ mentoring model. Results Using data from written reflections and interviews, we explored the role of instrumental and psychosocial supports in our mentoring relationship. In particular, we noted how elements of cognitive apprenticeship such as scaffolding and gradual fading of instrumental supports helped Paul and Deepthi learn qualitative research skills that differed drastically from their biomedical engineering research expertise. We initially conceptualized our tripartite relationship as one where Julie mentored Paul and Paul subsequently mentored Deepthi. Ultimately, we realized that this model was unrealistic because Paul did not yet possess the social science research expertise to mentor another novice. As a result, we changed our model so that Julie mentored both Paul and Deepthi directly. While our mentoring relationship was overall very positive, it has included many moments of miscommunication and misunderstanding. We draw on Lent and Lopez’s idea of relation-inferred self-efficacy to explain some of these missed opportunities for communication and understanding. Conclusions This paper contributes to the literature on engineering education capacity building by studying mentoring as a mechanism to support technically trained researchers in learning to conduct engineering education research. Our initial mentoring model failed to take into account how challenging it is for mentees to make the paradigm shift from technical engineering to social science research and how that would affect Paul’s ability to mentor Deepthi. Our experiences have implications for expanding research capacity because they raise practical and conceptual issues for experienced and novice engineering education researchers to consider as they form mentoring relationships.

Enablers and Barriers of Research Engagement Among Clinician Researchers: Nursing, Allied Health and Medical Professionals.

In response to the increasing involvement of nursing, allied health and medical professionals in research within clinical service roles, understanding the varying research capacities across public health institutions and professions is crucial. This study aims to explore the lived experiences of conducting research among nursing, allied health and medical health professionals within a tertiary public hospital setting in New South Wales (NSW). The focus is on identifying barriers and enablers to research engagement. Research active health professionals across nursing, allied health and medical professions were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview to discuss enablers and barriers experienced whilst conducting research. All interviews were transcribed verbatim, conceptual and thematic analysis of the interviews was conducted. Nine allied health professionals, eight nurses/midwives and thirteen medical officers were interviewed. Key themes were categorised as barriers or enablers. The ethics regulatory process was identified as a strong barrier in all professions, other commonly identified barriers were lack of time to conduct research and lack of funding. Researchers reported difficulties knowing where to obtain assistance and support when required. Mentorship was the most common enabler identified by all three professions. In addition, a positive research culture and organisational support and assistance within the organisation were seen as strong enablers. This research provides insight into the barriers and enablers for active clinician researchers across three professional groups. We have identified priority areas to increase research capacity within our health care organisation and will focus on training in the ethics regulatory process and mentorship along with infrastructure support to strengthen the positive research culture across all professions.

The Scope, Trends, and Challenges of Neurosurgical Research in Nigeria: A Bibliometric Review

This study investigates the scope, trends, and challenges of neurosurgical research in Nigeria since inception of the specialty in1962. A bibliometric review of the neurosurgical literature from Nigeria was performed. Variables extracted included year and journal of publication, article topic, article type, research type, study design, article focus area, and limitations. Descriptive and quantitative analyses were performed for all variables. Trends of research publications were described in three periods: pioneering (1962-1981), recession (1982-2001), and resurgent (2002-2021). Of the 1023 included articles, 10.0% were published in the pioneering period, 9.2% in the recession period, and 80.8% in the resurgent period. Papers were predominantly published in World Neurosurgery (4.5%) and Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice (4.0%). A total of 79.9% of the 4618 authors were from Nigerian institutions; 86.3% of the articles covered clinical research and were mainly focused on service delivery and epidemiology (89.9%). The most prominent topics were traumatic brain injury (25.8%) and central nervous system malignancy (21.4%). Only 4.4% of the publications received funding, mostly from agencies in the United States (31.7%). Barriers to neurosurgical research included lack of clinical databases (18.0%), increasing burden of disease (12.5%), and diagnostic challenges (12.4%). Neurosurgical research in Nigeria continues to grow due to increased training, workforce, and infrastructural improvements. Addressing the major challenges through establishment of research databases, development of evidence-based management guidelines, and increasing research training, funding and opportunities can increase research capacity in Nigeria.

A scoping review protocol of the lived experiences of doing a PhD in Africa.

This scoping review aims to investigate the available literature on the lived experiences of doing a PhD in African Universities. The continent of Africa still contributes a minimal amount of research towards global research outputs. The need for increased research capacity and outputs have been identified as priority for growth and development. There is a substantial need for evidence-based solutions that can alleviate some of these complexities. For example, challenges still exist in the disease burden faced, economic poverty and lack of infrastructure in various contexts. Multiple databases will be searched, including the EBSCO Host, Scopus, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline (Ovid), and Google Scholar. The scoping review will be conducted using the Arksey & O'Malley (2005)'s six-step approach in conjunction with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. Studies that examined the perspective of PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) candidates, supervisors from Africa, and research studies focusing on the common barriers and facilitators concerning research in Africa will be included. Studies that explore the perspectives of other postgraduate cohorts will be excluded. Ethics application will not be required but findings will be disseminated through publications, conference presentation, policy, and relevant stakeholders. This study has been registered with the Open Science Forum (OSF).

Interventions to enhance the research productivity of academic staff in higher education schools of nursing: A systematic review

AimSynthesize and present peer-reviewed evidence of interventions that enhance the research productivity of academics in Schools of Nursing in Higher Education Institutions. BackgroundPressures on academics in Schools of Nursing worldwide to increase or maintain high research productivity persist and numerous Higher Education Institutions across the world have developed interventions to increase productivity. Given evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a withdrawal from research, understanding which interventions best support and improve research productivity is urgent. Increasing research capacity is crucial but only one element in increasing productivity. No recent attempt has been made to synthesise the knowledge gained from these more wide-ranging initiatives. DesignA mixed-methods systematic review, registered in PROSPERO, searching four academic databases (CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO) from 1/01/2010–20/04/2022. All primary research studies of relevant interventions were included if they described the intervention, reported its outcomes and were published in the English language in peer-reviewed journals. Results1637 studies were assessed against eligibility criteria, resulting in 20 included studies. No studies were excluded based on quality. Data pertaining to understandings of ‘research productivity’, barriers to research productivity, interventions and outcomes of interventions were extracted. The most often used measures were the frequency or staff-output ratio of funding, publications and presentations, while the less commonly used were the number of conference abstracts submitted/accepted and awards. Subjective measures were less commonly used. Barriers to research productivity fell into three broad categories: resource constraints, lack of priority for research and barriers related to the attitudes, knowledge and skills of School of Nursing academics. Interventions covered nine broad areas. Half of the interventions were multi-stranded, including a wide range of components to increase research productivity while the other half comprised one component only, such as writing groups and mentoring. All interventions had a positive impact on research productivity, however, heterogeneity in the measurement of impact, the duration of interventions, sources of comparative data and research design made comparison of interventions challenging. ConclusionsThe review identified a need for future research to explore the barriers among under-represented groups of academics in Schools of Nursing across a broader geographical area; and what works for various sub-groups of academics. It also identified a need for a valid, standardised tool to assess the effectiveness of interventions to increase research productivity of academics in Schools of Nursing.

A Community of Practice to increase education and collaboration in dementia and ageing research and care: The Liverpool Dementia & Ageing Research Forum.

Too often, dementia research is conducted in research silos without thorough integration and the involvement of people with lived experiences, care professionals and the Third Sector. Research can also get lost in academic publications, without reaching those benefiting most from the evidence. The aim of this methods and evaluation paper was to outline the aims, components and evaluation of the public-facing and -engaging Liverpool Dementia & Ageing Research Forum, to provide a blueprint for setting up similar communities of practice. The Forum was set up in 2019 with the aim to (a) connect different stakeholders in dementia and ageing and co-produce research and to (b) inform and educate. This paper provides an account of the Forum model and evaluates the following key elements: (1) engagement; (2) experiences of the Forum and its impact (via an online evaluation survey and three reflections). All Forum members and attendees were asked to complete a brief evaluation survey about their experiences from October to November 2022. Three regular Forum attendees provided a case study about their involvement and its impact. The Forum has reached out to diverse stakeholders and the general public, generating growing interest and engagement since its initiation. Forty-four members and attendees completed the survey. Most attendees completing the evaluation survey have so far engaged in between 5 and 20 activities (47.8%), and 91% felt the aims of the Forum have been met. Engaging in the Forum has produced various benefits for attendees, including increased research capacity and knowledge, as well as improved connectivity with other stakeholders. Eleven percent of respondents, 39% of lived experts, stated they experienced improved access to postdiagnostic care. This is the first reported multistakeholder Community of Practice (CoP) on dementia and ageing. We make key recommendations for setting up and running similar dementia CoP, as they provide a noninterventional format for raising awareness, capacity and access to dementia care. This paper reports on the involvement and engagement of people with dementia, unpaid carers, health and social care providers and Third Sector organisations in a CoP.

Infrastructure Features Associated With Increased Department Research Capacity.

Although researchers have identified factors associated with research capacity in academic medicine departments, less is known about how a department builds research capacity over time. The Association of Departments of Family Medicine's Research Capacity Scale (RCS) can be used by departments to self-categorize into five capacity levels. Our current study aimed to describe the distribution of infrastructure features and to evaluate how the addition of infrastructure features influences movement of a department along the RCS. An online survey was sent to US family medicine department chairs in August 2021. Survey questions asked chairs to categorize their department's research capacity in 2018 and 2021 and also about the presence of infrastructure resources and changes in these features across 6 years. The response rate was 54.2%. Departments identified substantial variation in research capacity. Most departments classified into the middle three levels. Departments in higher levels were more likely than those at lower levels to have any of the infrastructure resources in 2021. Department size, as measured by full time faculty, was highly associated with department level. From 2018 and 2021, 43% of responding departments climbed at least one level. Of these, more than half added three or more infrastructure features. Adding a PhD researcher was the feature most associated with increasing research capacity (P<.001). Most departments that increased their research capacity added multiple additional infrastructure features. For chairs of departments without a PhD researcher, this additional resource may be the most impactful investment to increase research capacity.

Bibliometric analysis of authorship patterns in publications from a research group at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 2016–2020

BackgroundAuthors from low and middle-income country (LMIC) institutions are under-represented in publications of research based in LMICs. This case study of publications from authors within the Medical Research Council International...

An approach to telmophagous Nematocera (Ceratopogonidae, Psychodidae, and Simuliidae) of Spain, with emphasis on its medical and veterinary importance

Nematocera are a suborder of Diptera which historically influenced human history more than any other arthropod group. Four families show a hematophagous behaviour, one being solenophagous (Culicidae), feeding directly on blood vessels, and three being telmophagous (Ceratopogonidae, Psychodidae, and Simuliidae), feeding on blood which pools at the site where their mouthparts have formed a laceration. Although mosquitoes rank first in importance, the telmophagous are also of great interest. Objectives: to update the status of these nematocerans through a transdisciplinary approach, reviewing the main characteristics of each family, the situation of the main vector-borne diseases transmitted by them in the country, especially during the 21st century, and the most relevant species or species groups from a medical and veterinary perspective. Methods: a literature search of databases was conducted and supplemented by browsing specialized journals and citation searching. Results were reviewed and filtered. Results: to date, 84 species of biting midges (Ceratopogonidae), 13 species of sand flies (Psychodidae), and 53 species of black flies (Simuliidae) have been reported in Spain. Culicoides imicola and the Obsoletus complex stand out as the most important biting midges, as they are incriminated in the transmission of bluetongue and Schmallemberg virus; Phlebotomus perniciosus and Phlebotomus ariasi are the vectors of Leishmania infantum; and Simulium erythrocephalum and the Ornatum complex cause the greater part of nuisance and bites to humans in Spain. Conclusions: there is a need to increase research capacity in Spain in order to address several health challenges arising from the presence of telmophagous Nematocera in particular, and of blood-sucking atropods in general.

The impact of participation in research for speech and language therapy departments and their patients: A case example of the Big CACTUS multicentre trial of self-managed computerized aphasia therapy.

In order to conduct research that is meaningful to speech and language therapy services and their patients, it is often desirable to conduct the research within routine clinical services. This can require considerable time and commitment from speech and language therapists (SLTs). It is therefore important to understand the impact that such participation in research can have. To explore the impact of research participation in the Big CACTUS study of self-managed computerized aphasia therapy conducted in 21 UK NHS speech and language therapy departments. An online survey was sent to SLTs who took the lead role for the study at their NHS Trust to evaluate the impact of study participation in three domains: capacity-building, research development and health services. The questionnaire, based on the VICTOR framework for evaluating research impact, included Likert scale statements and closed and open-ended questions. The results from open-ended questions were coded and analysed using framework analysis in NVivo 12 and the data from closed questions were analysed descriptively. A total of 12 SLTs returned the survey. Nine codes were identified from open-ended questions and 20 predefined from the literature. Analysis of the responses demonstrated the perceived impact including improvements in practices and access to therapy, investments in infrastructure, increased SLT profile, and impact on research culture among SLTs. The usefulness of the intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic was also highlighted. The results suggest participation in Big CACTUS has resulted in improvements in patient care and SLT research capacity and culture in speech and language therapy departments. What is already known on the subject Practice-based research is encouraged to assist with the clinical relevance of the research findings. Participation in research can be seen as an activity that is additional to the core business of patient care and it can be difficult to secure time to participate or conduct research in clinical settings. Impact evaluation initiatives of individual trials facilitate early identification of benefits beyond the trial. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study describes specific examples of the impact on services, staff and patients from SLT participation and leadership in the Big CACTUS speech and language therapy trial in clinical settings. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this study? Clinical services participating in research may benefit from improved clinical care for patients both during and after the study, an improved professional reputation, and increased research capacity and culture within the clinical settings.

Increasing research capacity in community organizations: Findings from the Community Research Scholars Initiative

Increasing research capacity in community-based organizations (CBOs) can equip the organizations to be more equal partners in academic/community partnerships and can help them be more accountable to their clients and funders. In this study, we report on findings from four years of data collected from the Community Research Scholars Initiative (CRSI) in Cleveland, Ohio. CRSI provided intensive research training over two years to two cohorts (N = 9) of frontline workers (“Scholars”) from CBOs focused on health disparities. Scholars completed one year of didactic training and one year of mentoring to complete a research project based at their organization. Findings from surveys, focus groups with Scholars, and supervisor interviews indicated changes in Scholars’ knowledge, confidence, and comfort with research concepts and skills. Scholars also demonstrated greater confidence in interacting with academic researchers, enhanced networks and career opportunities, and increased capacity for conducting community-based research. Scholar and organization engagement with community-based research was maintained after the program’s end through a community-based research network (CBRN). Findings suggest that the intensive training program for community members with a broad curriculum, mentoring, and strong support helped changed how CBOs think about data and research and demonstrate the impact of their work.

Allied health professional research engagement and impact on healthcare performance: A systematic review protocol.

Existing evidence suggests that clinician and organization engagement in research can improve healthcare processes of care and outcomes. However, current evidence has considered the relationship across all healthcare professions collectively. With the increase in allied health clinical academic and research activity, it is imperative for healthcare organizations, leaders and managers to understand engagement in research within these specific clinical fields. This systematic review aims to identify the effect of engagement in research by allied health professionals (AHPs) and organizations on healthcare performance. This systematic review has a two-stage search strategy. The first stage will be to screen a previous systematic review examining the effectiveness of engagement in research in health and social care to identify relevant papers published pre-2012. The search strategy used in the previous review will then be rerun, but with a specific focus on allied health. This multi-database search will identify publications from 2012 to date. Only studies that assessed the effectiveness of allied health engagement in research will be included. All stages of the review will be conducted by two reviewers independently, plus documented discussions with the wider research team when discrepancies occur. This systematic review protocol follows the EQUATOR reporting guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P). The findings of this review will make a significant contribution to the evidence base around the effect of allied health engagement in research on healthcare performance. It will provide insights for clinicians and managers looking to understand the consequences of developing AHP research capability and capacity. The findings of this review will also aim to make recommendations for future evaluation approaches for engagement in research interventions. This systematic review protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, registration number CRD42021253461. What is already known on the subject This study will provide valuable evidence for professionals and policymakers seeking to understand engagement in research in the allied health disciplines. Where supported by the data, there may be recommendations for future research regarding specific variables to be considered when planning and evaluating engagement in research in allied health practice. What this paper adds to existing knowledge A previous systematic review identified a positive association between clinician and organization engagement in research and improved processes of care and health outcomes. The reviews' findings have been used as a justification for clinicians and organizations to increase research capacity. That review evaluated literature published before 2012 and the studies that were identified predominantly reported on engagement in research by medics and nurses. An updated review is now required to include research published since 2012. This review will specifically focus on the effect of engagement in research within allied health disciplines. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Research activity among AHPs is gaining momentum. Given this growth in AHP research activity and the rise in dedicated clinical academic roles, a contemporary review to identify the specific effect of AHP engagement in research on healthcare performance is prudent. The findings will inform clinicians, clinical managers and leaders of the potential impact of research activities by AHP clinicians and organizations. This will support the planning and development of initiatives focused on research capacity, capability and culture within allied health.

Ten years of Inuit co-management: advancing research, resilience, and capacity in Nunatsiavut through fishery governance

Community-based approaches have risen to prominence in fisheries governance as decision makers have recognized the importance of local perspectives, and Indigenous Peoples have pursued their right to self-determination. In Canada, some Indigenous Peoples have pursued a formalized approach to co-management through land claim agreements. The Torngat Joint Fisheries Board (TJFB) is one such co-management arrangement that focuses on fisheries management in Nunatsiavut, a land claim area in northern Labrador, Canada. This research examines how the TJFB’s work contributes to fisheries governance in the region, and subsequently, how co-management is placed in terms of supporting greater self-determination for Indigenous peoples in resource governance. To understand the TJFB’s role, this research examined 12 years of recorded meeting minutes from 2010 to 2021, highlighting the activities in which the TJFB engages, and how those activities have changed over time. Inductive content analysis was used to understand the activities undertaken by the TJFB, highlighting their actions as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the co-management board in practice. The analysis found that the TJFB plays important roles in research, drafting recommendations, and public education, and that their activities support greater participation from fisheries stakeholders. Land claim–based co-management has a significant impact on how Indigenous sovereignty operates and how it will evolve into the future. The TJFB’s efforts to increase research capacity in the region, push focus towards the socio-cultural dimensions of fisheries management, and strengthen the political voice of the region represent an important move toward self-determination in Nunatsiavut’s commercial fisheries.