Assessment of Health Research Capacity in Western Sydney Local Health District (WSLHD): A Study on Medical, Nursing and Allied Health Professionals.
allied health
nursing
research capacity
Journal
Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare
ISSN: 1178-2390
Titre abrégé: J Multidiscip Healthc
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101512691
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
12
07
2019
accepted:
10
12
2019
entrez:
28
2
2020
pubmed:
28
2
2020
medline:
28
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Research should inform clinical decision-making and evidence-based practice for all health professionals. To build research capacity among all health professionals, there is a need to measure the levels of research capacity and identify the gaps and needs of health-care professionals. The aim of the study was to better understand the research culture and capacity of health professionals (medical, nursing and allied health) in Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia. A research capacity and culture tool (RCCT) survey was electronically distributed to all health staff in WSLHD. Data were collected between November 2016 and January 2017. Participants were surveyed through a 10-point Likert scale that measured research capacity at the individual, team and organisational levels. A total of 393 health staff responded to the study: allied health practitioners (46.3%), nursing staff (35.4%) and medical practitioners (18.3%). Females made 76% of the sample, and 54% were aged between 35 and 54 years. Individual responses were different across professions, with an average median score for medical 6.3 (95% CI 5.8-6.9), allied health 5.3 (95% CI 4.9-5.7) and nursing 4.5 (95% CI 4.1-5.0) after adjustment for age and gender. Team responses for medical staff (average median score 5.9 95% CI 5.3-6.4) were higher than allied health (4.1 95% CI 3.7-4.6) and nursing (4.3 95% CI 3.8-4.8), after adjusting for age and gender. However, there were no differences between the three professions for the organisational responses. Allied health and nursing staff were less confident in obtaining research funding, submitting ethics applications, writing for publication and mentoring colleagues about research. This study demonstrates the individual research capacity for medical, allied health and nursing professionals are different. Research capacity building needs to be individually tailored to the specific needs of each profession. This research will inform future capacity building activities and training for health professionals in a large public health organisation of Sydney, Australia.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Research should inform clinical decision-making and evidence-based practice for all health professionals. To build research capacity among all health professionals, there is a need to measure the levels of research capacity and identify the gaps and needs of health-care professionals. The aim of the study was to better understand the research culture and capacity of health professionals (medical, nursing and allied health) in Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.
METHODS
METHODS
A research capacity and culture tool (RCCT) survey was electronically distributed to all health staff in WSLHD. Data were collected between November 2016 and January 2017. Participants were surveyed through a 10-point Likert scale that measured research capacity at the individual, team and organisational levels.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 393 health staff responded to the study: allied health practitioners (46.3%), nursing staff (35.4%) and medical practitioners (18.3%). Females made 76% of the sample, and 54% were aged between 35 and 54 years. Individual responses were different across professions, with an average median score for medical 6.3 (95% CI 5.8-6.9), allied health 5.3 (95% CI 4.9-5.7) and nursing 4.5 (95% CI 4.1-5.0) after adjustment for age and gender. Team responses for medical staff (average median score 5.9 95% CI 5.3-6.4) were higher than allied health (4.1 95% CI 3.7-4.6) and nursing (4.3 95% CI 3.8-4.8), after adjusting for age and gender. However, there were no differences between the three professions for the organisational responses. Allied health and nursing staff were less confident in obtaining research funding, submitting ethics applications, writing for publication and mentoring colleagues about research.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrates the individual research capacity for medical, allied health and nursing professionals are different. Research capacity building needs to be individually tailored to the specific needs of each profession. This research will inform future capacity building activities and training for health professionals in a large public health organisation of Sydney, Australia.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32103975
doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S222987
pii: 222987
pmc: PMC7024741
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
153-163Informations de copyright
© 2020 Lee et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
Références
Res Nurs Health. 2008 Apr;31(2):130-40
pubmed: 18213622
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2012;5:53-9
pubmed: 22396626
Aust Occup Ther J. 2013 Aug;60(4):241-51
pubmed: 23888974
BMC Med Educ. 2016 Jan 14;16:13
pubmed: 26768258
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Apr 19;13:144
pubmed: 23597184
Aust J Prim Health. 2017 Jul;23(3):300-306
pubmed: 28377009
Nurs Res Pract. 2013;2013:709025
pubmed: 23956854
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2012 Apr;36(2):106-8
pubmed: 22487341
Aust J Prim Health. 2012;18(1):62-7
pubmed: 22394664
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2017 Aug 09;10:277-291
pubmed: 28860795
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Aug 27;12:276
pubmed: 22920443
Health Res Policy Syst. 2015 Dec 21;13:80
pubmed: 26691766
J Foot Ankle Res. 2013 Jan 09;6(1):1
pubmed: 23302627
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
J Foot Ankle Res. 2015 Mar 28;8:11
pubmed: 25844092
Eval Health Prof. 2019 Aug 28;:163278719870568
pubmed: 31462081
J Clin Nurs. 2018 Apr;27(7-8):e1462-e1476
pubmed: 29322683
Aust Health Rev. 2015 Jun;39(3):303-311
pubmed: 25981456
J Hum Nutr Diet. 2013 Jul;26 Suppl 1:180-7
pubmed: 23577923
BMC Res Notes. 2011 Jun 22;4:212
pubmed: 21696585
Aust J Prim Health. 2016 Jun 07;22(4):294-303
pubmed: 27267051
Intern Med J. 2014 Jan;44(1):86-9
pubmed: 24450523
Aust Health Rev. 2014 Jun;38(3):252-8
pubmed: 24785693
Aust J Physiother. 2007;53(3):143-4
pubmed: 17725470