Evaluating the impact of the supporting the advancement of research skills (STARS) programme on research knowledge, engagement and capacity-building in a health and social care organisation in England.
Barriers to research engagement
Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
Evaluation
Evidence-based practice
Research capacity development (RCD)
Research skills development
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Feb 2024
08 Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
04
01
2023
accepted:
15
01
2024
medline:
9
2
2024
pubmed:
9
2
2024
entrez:
8
2
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate the impact a novel education programme - to improve research engagement, awareness, understanding and confidence - had on a diverse health and social care workforce. Barriers and facilitators to engagement were explored together with research capacity-building opportunities and ways to embed a research culture. The programme is entitled 'Supporting The Advancement of Research Skills' (STARS programme); the paper reports findings from a health and social care setting in England, UK. A four-level outcome framework guided the approach to evaluation and was further informed by key principles of research capacity development and relevant theory. Quantitative data were collected from learners before and after engagement; these were analysed descriptively. Semi-structured online interviews were conducted with learners and analysed thematically. A purposive sample was achieved to include a diversity in age, gender, health and social care profession, and level of attendance (regular attendees, moderate attendees and non-attenders). The evaluation spanned 18 half-day workshops and 11 seminars delivered by expert educators. 165 (2% of total staff at Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust (MPFT)) staffs booked one or more education sessions; 128 (77%) including Allied Health Professionals (AHPs), psychologists, nursing and midwifery, and social workers attended one or more session. Key themes of engagement with teaching sessions, relevance and impact of training and promoting a research active environment were identified with relevant sub-themes. Positive impacts of training were described in terms of research confidence, intentions, career planning and application of research skills as a direct result of training. Lack of dedicated time for research engagement, work pressures and time commitments required for the programme were key barriers. Facilitators that facilitated engagement are also described. Findings demonstrate the impact that a free, virtual and high-quality research education programme had at individual and organisational levels. The programme is the product of a successful collaboration between health and social care and academic organisations; this provides a useful framework for others to adapt and adopt. Key barriers to attendance and engagement spoke to system-wide challenges that an education programme could not address in the short-term. Potential solutions are discussed in relation to protecting staff time, achieving management buy-in, recognising research champions, and having a clear communication strategy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38331811
doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05059-0
pii: 10.1186/s12909-024-05059-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
126Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Austin A. What does the new clinical research vision mean for NHS patients and health professionals? England.nhs.uk/blog. 2021. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/blog/what-does-the-new-clinical-research-vision-mean-for-nhs-patients-and-health-professionals/#:~:text=Research%20is%20beneficial%20to%20people,faster%20returns%20to%20everyday%20life . Accessed 18 Feb 2022.
Policy paper. UK Govt. Saving and improving lives: the future of UK Clinical Research Delivery, United Kingdom. 2021. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-future-of-uk-clinical-research-delivery/saving-and-improving-lives-the-future-of-uk-clinical-research-delivery . Accessed Jan 2022.
National Health Service Making research matter: Chief Nursing Officer for England’s strategic plan for research. Available online at https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/B0880-cno-for-englands-strategic-plan-fo-research.pdf . 2021. Accessed 22 Apr 2022.
Royal College of Physicians. Delivering research for all: expectations and aspirations for the NHS in England (policy statement). Available at Delivering research for all: expectations and aspirations for the NHS in England | RCP London. 2019. Accessed 22 Apr 2022.
Barouki R, Kogevinas M, Audouze K, et al. The COVID-19 pandemic and global environmental change: emerging research needs. Environ Int. 2021;146: 106272.
doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106272
pubmed: 33238229
Cooke J, Gardois P, Booth A. Uncovering the mechanisms of research capacity development in health and social care: a realist synthesis. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):93.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0363-4
pubmed: 30241484
pmcid: 6150992
Mustafa K, Murray CC, Nicklin E, et al. Understanding barriers for research involvement among paediatric trainees: a mixed methods study. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18:165.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-018-1263-6
pubmed: 30005649
pmcid: 6044020
Fry M, Attawet J. Nursing and midwifery use, perceptions and barriers to evidence-based practice: a cross-sectional survey. Int J Evid Based Healthcare. 2018;16(1):47–54. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000117 . (Accessed 14 Mar 2022).
doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000117
Barratt H, Fulop NJ. Building capacity to use and undertake research in health organisations: a survey of training needs and priorities among staff. BMJ Open. 2016;6: e012557.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012557
pubmed: 27927657
pmcid: 5168601
Maben J, King A. Engaging NHS staff in research. BMJ. 2019;365:l4040. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4040 . (Accessed 22 Apr 2022).
doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4040
pubmed: 31208964
King O, West E, Lee S, Glenister K, Quilliam C, Wong Shee A, Beks H. Research education and training for nurses and allied health professionals: a systematic scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):1–55.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03406-7
Burkinshaw P, Bryant LD, Magee C, et al. Ten years of NIHR research training: perceptions of the programmes: a qualitative interview study. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e046410. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046410 . (Accessed 22 Apr 2022).
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046410
pubmed: 35027413
pmcid: 8762125
Wakefield J, Lavender S, Nixon K, et al. Social work and social care: mapping workforce engagement, relevance, experience and interest in research. Br J Social Work. 2021;00:1–21.
What is social work/ social care? TCSW. Available: http://www.tcsw.org.uk/what-is-social-work-social-care/ . Sited on: 2 Jan 2024.
Dimova S, Prideaux R, Ball S, et al. Enabling NHS staff to contribute to research. Cambridge: RAND Europe; 2018.
Gilbert A, Steel J, Rachel D, Jaggi A. Identifying barriers and facilitators to engaging in clinical research within an NHS Therapies Department: results of a listening exercise. Physiotherapy. 2016;102:e179.
doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2016.10.214
Jowett SM, Macleod J, Wilson S, Hobbs FD. Research in primary care: extent of involvement and perceived determinants among practitioners from one English region. Br J Gen Pract. 2000;50(454):387–9.
pubmed: 10897537
pmcid: 1313704
Rahman S, Majumder MA, Shaban SF, Rahman N, Ahmed M, Abdulrahman KB, D’souza UJ. Physician participation in clinical research and trials: issues and approaches. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2011;7:85–93.
doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S14103
Withington T, Alcorn N, Maybery D, Goodyear M. Building research capacity in clinical practice for social workers: a training and mentorship approach. Adv Mental Health. 2020;18(1):73–90.
doi: 10.1080/18387357.2020.1726194
Papanicolas I, Mossialos E, Gundersen A, Woskie L, Jha AK. Performance of UK National Health Service compared with other high-income countries: observational study. BMJ. 2019;367:6326.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6326
Kirkpatrick DL. Evaluating training programs. Mumbai: Tata McGraw-Hill Education; 1998.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol Taylor Francis Online. 2006;3(2):77–101.
doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Hawkins JE. The practical utility and suitability of email interviews in qualitative research. Qualitative Rep. 2018;23(2):493.
Amri M, Angelakis C, Logan D. Utilizing asynchronous email interviews for health research: overview of benefits and drawbacks. BMC Res Notes. 2021;14(1):1–5.
doi: 10.1186/s13104-021-05547-2
Kirkpatrick JD, Kirkpatrick WK. Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. Association for Talent Development; 2016.
Gee M, Cooke J. How do NHS organisations plan research capacity development? Strategies, strengths, and opportunities for improvement. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):1–1.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-2992-2
Ariely D, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. Tom Sawyer and the construction of value. J Econ Behav Organ. 2006;60(1):1–10.
doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2004.10.003
Abramovich S, McBride M. Open education resources and perceptions of financial value. Internet Higher Educ. 2018;39:33–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.06.002
George PP, Zhabenko O, Kyaw BM, et al. Online digital education for post registration training of medical doctors: systematic review by the Digital Health Education Collaboration. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(2): e13269.
doi: 10.2196/13269
pubmed: 30801252
pmcid: 6410118
Newport L, Roberts D. Developing online training in wound care. Br J Nurs. 2021;30(12):37–8.
doi: 10.12968/bjon.2021.30.12.S37
Bączek M, Zagańczyk-Bączek M, Szpringer M, et al. Students’ perception of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey study of polish medical students. Medicine. 2021;100(7):e24821.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024821
pubmed: 33607848
pmcid: 7899848
Clayton KE, Blumberg FC, Anthony JA. Linkages between course status, perceived course value, and students’ preference for traditional versus non-traditional learning environments. Comput Educ. 2018;125:175–81.
doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.002
Gegenfurtner A, Schmidt-Hertha B, Lewis P. Digital technologies in training and adult education. Int J Train Dev. 2020;24(1):1–4.
doi: 10.1111/ijtd.12172
Odayappan A, Venkatesh R, Tammineni R, et al. Perspectives of physicians regarding the role of webinars on medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021;69(5):1251.
doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_24_21
pubmed: 33913871
pmcid: 8186632
Bullock A, Morris ZS, Atwell C. Collaboration between health services managers and researchers: making a difference? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2012;17(2):2–10.
doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011099
pubmed: 22572710
Nyström ME, Karltun J, Keller C, Andersson Gäre B. Collaborative and partnership research for improvement of health and social services: researcher’s experiences from 20 projects. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):1–7.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0322-0
Department of Health. UK policy framework for health and social care research. 2017. Available at: https://www.healthandcareresearch.gov.wales/uploads/Policy%20%26%20Strategy/Research%20Governance/uk-policy-framework-health-social-care-research.pdf . Accessed Feb 2023.
Holm S. Declaration of Helsinki. Int Encyclopedia Ethics. 2013;1:1–4.