Dataset Information

Experiences of hospital allied health professionals in collaborative student research projects: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Active engagement in research by healthcare organisations and clinicians is associated with improvements in healthcare performance. Barriers to research engagement by clinician allied health (AH) professionals include competing priorities from high clinical workloads, lack of research skills and confidence, and lack of supportive research relationships. Collaboration with universities on joint clinical research projects is well recognised as a means of building health service research capacity. Research projects undertaken by students as part of their qualifying degree represent one such opportunity. However, there are few reports evaluating these collaborations from the health service perspective.

Methods

A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis to explore the experiences of AH professionals in the co-supervision of students completing research placements as part of their professional degree course.

Results

Fourteen health service employees from six allied health disciplines described collaborations on research projects with 24 students from four different universities. Student placements and projects varied widely in length of placement, extent of collaboration, supervision structure and study design. Three overarching themes were identified in the AH professional co-supervision experience: 1) Professional growth; 2) Mismatch with expectations; and 3) Focus on the student. Project outcomes were categorised from the health system perspective. These were 1) Healthcare performance improvements, including local increases in staff clinical practice knowledge and wider contributions to the evidence base; 2) Research capacity gains within the health service, including research knowledge and skill development, collaborative linkages and opportunity for future research; and 3) Staff-centred outcomes including increased job satisfaction.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the potential for AH professional supervision of students on research placements to contribute to healthcare performance improvements and research capacity gains within health services, alongside providing personal benefits for the AH professionals involved. Early consultation with a health service-employed research specialist may support health professional and student learning, team collaboration and project coordination for these student projects.

SUBMITTER: Angus RL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9161454 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Experiences of hospital allied health professionals in collaborative student research projects: a qualitative study.

Angus Rebecca L RL Hattingh H Laetitia HL Weir Kelly A KA

BMC health services research 20220601 1

<h4>Background</h4>Active engagement in research by healthcare organisations and clinicians is associated with improvements in healthcare performance. Barriers to research engagement by clinician allied health (AH) professionals include competing priorities from high clinical workloads, lack of research skills and confidence, and lack of supportive research relationships. Collaboration with universities on joint clinical research projects is well recognised as a means of building health service ...[more]

PMID: 35650578

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGetting research into policy and practice in healthcare is a recognised, world-wide concern. As an attempt to bridge the gap between research and practice, research funders are requesting more interdisciplinary and collaborative research, while actual experiences of such processes have been less studied. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to gain more knowledge on the interdisciplinary, collaborative and partnership research process by investigating researchers' experiences of and approaches to the process, based on their participation in an inventive national research programme. The programme aimed to boost collaborative and partnership research and build learning structures, while improving ways to lead, manage and develop practices in Swedish health and social services.MethodsInterviews conducted with project leaders and/or lead researchers and documentation from 20 projects were analysed using directed and conventional content analysis.ResultsCollaborative approaches were achieved by design, e.g. action research, or by involving practitioners from several levels of the healthcare system in various parts of the research process. The use of dual roles as researcher/clinician or practitioner/PhD student or the use of education designed especially for practitioners or 'student researchers' were other approaches. The collaborative process constituted the area for the main lessons learned as well as the main problems. Difficulties concerned handling complexity and conflicts between different expectations and demands in the practitioner's and researcher's contexts, and dealing with human resource issues and group interactions when forming collaborative and interdisciplinary research teams. The handling of such challenges required time, resources, knowledge, interactive learning and skilled project management.ConclusionsCollaborative approaches are important in the study of complex phenomena. Results from this study show that allocated time, arenas for interactions and skills in project management and communication are needed during research collaboration to ensure support and build trust and understanding with involved practitioners at several levels in the healthcare system. For researchers, dealing with this complexity takes time and energy from the scientific process. For practitioners, this puts demands on understanding a research process and how it fits with on-going organisational agendas and activities and allocating time. Some of the identified factors may be overlooked by funders and involved stakeholders when designing, performing and evaluating interdisciplinary, collaborative and partnership research.

Project description:BackgroundHealth policy in many countries directs treatment to the lowest effective care level and encourages collaboration between primary and specialist mental health care. A number of models for collaborative care have been developed, and patient benefits are being reported. Less is known about what enables and prevents implementation and sustainability of such models regarding the actions and attitudes of stakeholders on the ground. This article reports from a qualitative sub-study of a cluster-RCT testing a model for collaborative care in Oslo, Norway. The model involved the placement of psychologists and psychiatrists from a community mental health centre in each intervention GP practice. GPs could seek their input or advice when needed and refer patients to them for assessment (including assessment of the need for external services) or treatment.MethodsWe conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with GPs (n = 7), CMHC specialists (n = 6) and patients (n = 11) in the intervention arm. Sample specific topic guides were used to investigate the experience of enablers and barriers to the collaborative care model. Data were subject to stepwise deductive-inductive thematic analysis.ResultsParticipants reported positive experiences of how the model improved accessibility. First, co-location made GPs and CMHC specialists accessible to each other and facilitated detailed, patient-centred case collaboration and learning through complementary skills. The threshold for patients' access to specialist care was lowered, treatment could commence early, and throughput increased. Treatment episodes were brief (usually 5-10 sessions) and this was too brief according to some patients. Second, having experienced mental health specialists in the team and on the front line enabled early assessment of symptoms and of the type of treatment and service that patients required and were entitled to, and who could be treated at the GP practice. This improved both care pathways and referral practices. Barriers revolved around the organisation of care. Logistical issues could be tricky but were worked out. The biggest obstacle was the funding of health care at a structural level, which led to economic losses for both the GP practices and the CMHC, making the model unsustainable.ConclusionsParticipants identified a range of benefits of collaborative care for both patients and services. However, the funding system in effect penalises collaborative work. It is difficult to see how policy aiming for successful, sustainable collaboration can be achieved without governments changing funding structures.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03624829.

Project description:BackgroundBuilding the capacity of allied health professionals to engage in research has been recognised as a priority due to the many benefits it brings for patients, healthcare professionals, healthcare organisations and society more broadly. There is increasing recognition of the need for a coordinated multi-strategy approach to building research capacity. The aim of this systematic review was to identify existing integrated models and frameworks which guide research capacity building for allied health professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary healthcare organisations.MethodsA systematic review was undertaken searching five databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, AustHealth and Web of Science) using English language restrictions. Two authors independently screened and reviewed studies, extracted data and performed quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Content and thematic analysis methods were used to code and categorise the data.ResultsA total of 8492 unique records were screened by title and abstract, of which 20 were reviewed in full-text. One quantitative study and five qualitative studies were included, each of which describing a research capacity building framework. Three interconnected and interdependent themes were identified as being essential for research capacity building, including 'supporting clinicians in research', 'working together' and 'valuing research for excellence'.ConclusionsThe findings of this systematic review have been synthesised to develop a succinct and integrated framework for research capacity building which is relevant for allied health professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary healthcare organisations. This framework provides further evidence to suggest that research capacity building strategies are interlinked and interdependent and should be implemented as part of an integrated 'whole of system' approach, with commitment and support from all levels of leadership and management. Future directions for research include using behaviour change and knowledge translation theories to guide the implementation and evaluation of this new framework.Trial registrationThe protocol for this systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO. The registration number is CRD42018087476 .

Project description:BackgroundInvolvement in research activities is complex in pediatric nursing and allied health professionals (AHPs). It is important to understand which individual factors are associated with it to inform policy makers in promoting research.MethodsA cross-sectional observational study was conducted to describe the level of participation in research activities over the last ten years of nurses and AHPs working in a tertiary pediatric hospital. A large sample of nurses and AHPs working in an Italian academic tertiary pediatric hospital completed an online self-report questionnaire between June and December 2018. Three multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to predict participation in research projects, speaking at conferences, and writing scientific articles.ResultsOverall, data from 921 health professionals were analyzed (response rate = 66%), of which about 21% (n = 196) reported participating in a research project, while 33% (n = 297) had attended a scientific conference as a speaker, and 11% (n = 94) had written at least one scientific paper. Having a Master or a Regional Advanced Course, working as an AHP or a ward manager, as well as regularly reading scientific journals and participation in an internal hospital research group or attendance in a specific course about research in the hospital, significantly predicted participation in research projects, speaking at conferences and writing scientific papers. It is important to foster research interest and competencies among health professionals to improve participation in research projects, speaking at conferences, and writing scientific papers.ConclusionsOverall, we found a good level of attendance at conferences as speakers (33%), a moderate level of participation in research (21%), and low levels for writing scientific papers (11%). Our study highlighted the need to support participation in research activities among nurses and AHPs. Policymakers should identify strategies to promote research among nurses and AHPs, such as protected rewarded time for research, specific education, strengthened collaboration with academics, and financial support. Moreover, hospital managers should promote the development of research culture among health professionals, to improve their research competencies and evidence-based practice.

Project description:BackgroundMaintaining a health professional workforce in rural and remote areas poses a significant challenge internationally. A range of recruitment and retention strategies have had varying success and these are generally developed from the collective experience of all health professions, rather than targeted to professional groups with differing educational and support contexts. This review explores, compares and synthesises the evidence examining the experience of early career rural and remote allied health professionals and doctors to better understand both the profession specific, and common factors that influence their experience.MethodsQualitative studies that include early career allied health professionals' or doctors' experiences of working in rural or remote areas and the personal and professional factors that impact on this experience were considered. A systematic search was completed across five databases and three grey literature repositories to identify published and unpublished studies. Studies published since 2000 in English were considered. Studies were screened for inclusion and critically appraised by two independent reviewers. Data was extracted and assigned a level of credibility. Data synthesis adhered to the JBI meta-aggregative approach.ResultsOf the 1408 identified articles, 30 papers were eligible for inclusion, with one rated as low in quality and all others moderate or high quality. A total of 23 categories, 334 findings and illustrations were aggregated into three synthesised findings for both professional groups including: making a difference through professional and organisational factors, working in rural areas can offer unique and rewarding opportunities for early career allied health professionals and doctors, and personal and community influences make a difference. A rich dataset was obtained and findings illustrate similarities including the need to consider personal factors, and differences, including discipline specific supervision for allied health professionals and local supervision for doctors.ConclusionsStrategies to enhance the experience of both allied health professionals and doctors in rural and remote areas include enabling career paths through structured training programs, hands on learning opportunities, quality supervision and community immersion.Systematic review registration numberPROSPERO CRD42021223187.

Project description:ObjectivesUsing theoretical frameworks from implementation science, we aimed to systematically explore the barriers and enablers to research active allied health professionals (AHP) participating and leading research in the hospital setting.DesignA qualitative interview study informed by behaviour change theory.SettingSingle Australian tertiary hospital and health service.ParticipantsWe recruited a convenience sample of 21 AHPs working within a hospital who were seeking to actively participate in/or lead research within their workplace.Data collectionSemistructured interviews explored perceived barriers and enablers to research participation, informed by the 14 domains of the theoretical domains framework (TDF). Transcribed interviews were deductively coded and mapped to the TDF. A deeper level of inductive coding was used to identify emergent themes that influenced behaviour change, according to the three key constructs of: capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B).ResultsBarriers and enablers to research participation were identified within nine predominant domains of the TDF. Most enablers to engaging in research related to the motivation or opportunity constructs of the COM-B. These enablers included positive beliefs about the consequences of research participation, enabling social influences, peer support and motivation for skill development and to inform practice. Predominant barriers related to environmental context and resources (eg, reduced funding or time), emotional responses of being overwhelmed and perceptions of reduced capability.ConclusionThis study identified key barriers and enablers to behaviour change related to AHPs participating and/or leading research. Motivation and opportunities to participate in research may be enabled by maximising social influence opportunities, reiterating beliefs about positive consequences of research and considering AHP's emotional responses. Implementation science frameworks may provide a more systematic and holistic understanding of factors which influence research participation including enhancing knowledge, motivation and opportunity.

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough fieldwork supervisors and culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) students can experience challenges during allied health placements, there is little holistic understanding of how they view and use support resources to address these challenges. This study sought to identify, codify, and map the perceived value attached to support resources used or sought by CALD students and fieldwork supervisors and to ascertain areas where they could be optimised and better presented to users.MethodsWe conducted a thematic analysis to examine interview and open-ended survey responses from CALD students (n = 18) and fieldwork supervisors (n = 161) respectively.FindingsThe six generated themes depicted different patterns of perceived value in university and non-university support resources and spanned three levels of specificity: general, discipline-contextualised, and individualised. Fieldwork supervisors valued a staged approach to support resource design and use for CALD students commencing with general level resources to build foundational language skills and socio-cultural familiarisation and moving on to include disciple-contextualised supports, preplacement mechanisms to monitor student readiness, and formalised mechanisms to enable tailoring of placements. CALD students, however, often undervalued institutional general resources relative to discipline-contextualised resources. The commonality of support resources valued and sought by supervisors from different fields suggests they could be optimised for delivery via an inter-professional community of practice.ConclusionIdentifying and mapping the perceived value attached to support resources provides actionable insights into how to enhance the 'fit' between resources and user needs. Drawing the often-fragmented support resources into a cohesive ecosystem focused around perceived value at different levels of specificity allows CALD students and educators to better conceptualise the types of benefits that can accrue from taking a broader and staged approach to fieldwork placement preparations. Knowing this ecosystem encapsulates what prior uses find of value may enhance perceptions of resource relevance in the minds of new users.

Dataset Information

Experiences of hospital allied health professionals in collaborative student research projects: a qualitative study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Experiences of hospital allied health professionals in collaborative student research projects: a qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets