Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Research is a key driver in improving the quality of care in health settings. The UK Government has published its strategy to increase research within the National Health Service (NHS) and to implement lessons learned from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We investigated the current research interest, culture, and capacity amongst staff in one medium-sized, regional Health Board in Scotland to determine how research activity may be increased and how attitudes to research may have changed following the recent pandemic. Methods This study was part of a two-phase evaluation with both quantitative and qualitative methods using an initial questionnaire ( n  = 503) and then semi-structured interviews with 28 staff recruited following completion of their questionnaire. Results from the first phase have been published; this paper presents the results of the second phase. The interview explored the perception of the research culture and capacity at an organisational, team and individual level. Topics included perceived barriers and facilitators for engaging in research activities and the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on changes in attitude to research within the NHS. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis. Results Respondents comprised 7 nurses/midwives, 6 doctors/dentists, 3 allied health professionals, 3 other therapeutic and 9 admin/support staff. All respondents identified similar facilitators and barriers to undertaking research, irrespective of their role or experience with research. Four key themes were: the influence of structural and professional differences, the need for protected time, access to resources, and increased visibility of research. Responses varied between staff grades; those with research embedded as part of their training and professional role expressed more accepting views to undertaking research. Issues identified were the provision of protected time, skills training, practical support from research facilitators working in clinical teams, active encouragement by managers, improved communication, and the adoption of a research strategy at Board level. Research activity declined during the pandemic, but respondents expressed an increased awareness of the importance of research as a priority in improving health outcomes during the pandemic. Conclusions The research interest and culture in our Health Board could be improved by addressing the four broad themes identified, thereby increasing research capacity in line with Government aspirations. The findings may have relevance for small to medium-sized Health Boards in the UK and elsewhere when responding to the call to increase their research profile.

Background The UK National Health Service (NHS) is ideally placed to undertake research. The UK Government recently launched its vision of research within the NHS to improve research culture and activity amongst its staff. Currently, little is known about the research interest, capacity and culture of staff in one Health Board in South East Scotland and how their attitudes to research may have changed as a result of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Methods We used the validated Research Capacity and Culture tool in an online survey of staff working in one Health Board in South East Scotland to explore attitudes to research at the organisation, team and individual level together with involvement in, barriers to and motivators to engage in research. Questions included changes in attitude to research as a result of the pandemic. Staff were identified by professional group: nurses/midwives, medical/dental, allied health professionals (AHP), other therapeutic and administrative roles. Median scores and interquartile ranges were reported and differences between groups assessed using the Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests with P < 0.05 accepted as statistical significance. Free-text entries were analysed using content analysis. Results Replies were received from 503/9145 potential respondents (5.5% response), of these 278 (3.0% response) completed all sections of the questionnaire. Differences between groups were noted in the proportions of those with research as part of their role (P = 0.012) and in being research-active (P < 0.001). Respondents reported high scores for promoting evidence-based practice and for finding and critically reviewing literature. Low scores were returned for preparing reports and securing grants. Overall, medical and other therapeutic staff reported higher levels of practical skills compared with other groups. Principal barriers to research were pressure of clinical work and lack of time, backfill and funds. 171/503 (34%) had changed their attitude to research as a result of the pandemic with 92% of 205 respondents more likely to volunteer for a study themselves. Conclusion We found a positive change in attitude to research arising from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Research engagement may increase after addressing the barriers cited. The present results provide a baseline against which future initiatives introduced to increase research capability and capacity may be assessed.

Background Although important syntheses and theoretical works exist in relation to understanding the organisational factors that facilitate research use, these contributions differ in their scope and object of study as well as their theoretical underpinnings. Therefore, from an exploratory angle, it may be useful to map out the current literature on organisational factors of research use in public health policy-making when revisiting existing theories and frameworks to gain further theoretical insights. Methods Herein, a scoping review technique and thematic content analysis were used to bring together findings from both synthesised and empirical studies of different types to map out the organisational factors that facilitate research use in public health policy-making. Results A total of 14 reviews and 40 empirical studies were included in the analysis. These were thematically coded and the intra-organisational factors reported as enabling research use were examined. Five main categories of organisational factors that advance research use in policy organisations – (1) individual factors, (2) the management of research integration, (3) organisational systems and infrastructures of research use, (4) institutional structures and rules for policy-making, and (5) organisational characteristics – were derived as well as 18 subcategories and a total of 64 specific factors, where 27 factors were well supported by research. Conclusions Using a scoping review methodology, the intra-organisational factors influencing research use in policy-making (including individual factors) were systematically mapped and the theories applied in this area of research were assessed. The review findings confirm the importance of an intra-organisational perspective when exploring research use, showing that many organisational factors are critical facilitators of research use but also that many factors and mechanisms are understudied. The synthesis shows a lack of studies on politicians and the need for more theoretically founded research. Despite increased efforts to update the existing evidential and theoretical basis of research use, we still need frameworks that combine different approaches and theories to help us grasp the complex organisational mechanisms that facilitate research use in policy settings.

Background Despite increasing evidence on health inequalities over the past decades, further efforts to strengthen capacities to produce research on this topic are still urgently needed to inform effective interventions aiming to address these inequalities. To strengthen these research capacities, an initial comprehensive understanding of the health inequalities research production process is vital. However, most existing research and models are focused on understanding the relationship between health inequalities research and policy, with less focus on the health inequalities research production process itself. Existing conceptual frameworks provide valuable, yet limited, advancements on this topic; for example, they lack the capacity to comprehensively explain the health (and more specifically the health inequalities) research production process at the local level, including the potential pathways, components and determinants as well as the dynamics that might be involved. This therefore reduces their ability to be empirically tested and to provide practical guidance on how to strengthen the health inequalities research process and research capacities in different settings. Several scholars have also highlighted the need for further understanding and guidance in this area to inform effective action. Methods Through a critical review, we developed a novel conceptual model that integrates the social determinants of health and political economy perspectives to provide a comprehensive understanding of how health inequalities research and the related research capacities are likely to be produced (or inhibited) at local level. Results Our model represents a global hypothesis on the fundamental processes involved, and can serve as a heuristic tool to guide local level assessments of the determinants, dynamics and relations that might be relevant to better understand the health inequalities research production process and the related research capacities. Conclusions This type of knowledge can assist researchers and decision-makers to identify any information gaps or barriers to be addressed, and establish new entry points to effectively strengthen these research capacities. This can lead to the production of a stronger evidence base, both locally and globally, which can be used to inform strategic efforts aimed at achieving health equity.

Developing research capacity is recognised as an important endeavour. However, little is known about the current research culture, capacity and supports for staff working in community-based health settings. A structured survey of Division of Community Health staff was conducted using the research capacity tool. The survey was disseminated by email and in paper format. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. In total, 109 usable responses were received, giving a response rate of 26%. Respondents were predominately nurses (n = 71, 65.7%), with ~50% reporting post-graduate vocational qualifications. The highest levels of skills or organisational success were in using evidence to plan, promote and guide clinical practice. Most participants were unsure of organisational and team level skills and success at generating research. Few reported recent experience in research-generating activities. Barriers to undertaking research included lack of skills, time and access to external support and funding. Lack of skills and success in accessing external funding and resources to protect research time or to ‘buy-in’ technical expertise appeared to exacerbate these barriers. Community health staff have limited capacity to generate research with current levels of skill, funding and time. Strategies to increase research capacity should be informed by knowledge of clinicians’ research experience and interests, and target development of skills to generate research. Resources and funding are needed at the organisational and team levels to overcome the significant barriers to research generation reported.

Background 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. 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. Methods A 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. Results 93 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. Conclusions Allied 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.

Background Building 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. Methods A 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. Results A 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’. Conclusions The 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 registration The protocol for this systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO. The registration number is CRD42018087476 .

Conducting health research in conflict-affected areas and other complex environments is difficult, yet vital. However, the capacity to undertake such research is often limited and with little translation into practice, particularly in poorer countries. There is therefore a need to strengthen health research capacity in conflict-affected countries and regions. In this narrative review, we draw together evidence from low and middle-income countries to highlight challenges to research capacity strengthening in conflict, as well as examples of good practice. We find that authorship trends in health research indicate global imbalances in research capacity, with implications for the type and priorities of research produced, equity within epistemic communities and the development of sustainable research capacity in low and middle-income countries. Yet, there is little evidence on what constitutes effective health research capacity strengthening in conflict-affected areas. There is more evidence on health research capacity strengthening in general, from which several key enablers emerge: adequate and sustained financing; effective stewardship and equitable research partnerships; mentorship of researchers of all levels; and effective linkages of research to policy and practice. Strengthening health research capacity in conflict-affected areas needs to occur at multiple levels to ensure sustainability and equity. Capacity strengthening interventions need to take into consideration the dynamics of conflict, power dynamics within research collaborations, the potential impact of technology, and the wider political environment in which they take place.

AbstractPopulation-level vaccination with newly developed vaccines to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic created a need to monitor vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the context of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and changing epidemiology. WHO and partners launched the African Region Monitoring Vaccine Effectiveness (AFRO-MoVE) Network in March 2021 to assess the performance of COVID-19 vaccines in real-world conditions in Africa. The Network aimed to facilitate and support comparable COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies in the African region, to provide a platform of scientific expertise and infrastructure, encourage the use of robust similar study designs to enable pooling to produce regional VE estimates and to build a sustainable network of hospitals, institutions, and experts to evaluate vaccines against pandemic and endemic respiratory pathogens. In the two years since its inception, the network has coordinated VE studies in the region and provided technical guidance and generic protocols employing robust methodologies. It brought together over 200 experts, representing 22 African countries and 55 organisations, and strengthened capacities by hosting ten webinars and six technical workshops. Of the 55 partners organisations, 25 based in 13 countries collaborated on implementing VE studies in the region. AFRO-MoVE supported study implementation in two phases, first targeting COVID-19 vaccination priority groups, then the general population. The network provides technical and financial support to nine studies, including three cohort studies in health workers and adults with comorbidities, and six test-negative design studies evaluating VE against symptomatic and severe disease. A data platform was established for pooled regional estimates. The AFRO-MoVE Network can form a sustainable platform to provide data for evidence informed decisions and timely VE monitoring for existing and new vaccines against respiratory pathogens and other diseases in the African region. Further development and consolidation of the network’s activities can enable rapid response to future epidemics and pandemics.