Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Billions of dollars are lost annually in health research that fails to create meaningful benefits for patients. Engaging in research co-design – the meaningful involvement of end-users in research – may help address this research waste. This rapid overview of reviews addressed three related questions, namely (1) what approaches to research co-design exist in health settings? (2) What activities do these research co-design approaches involve? (3) What do we know about the effectiveness of existing research co-design approaches? The review focused on the study planning phase of research, defined as the point up to which the research question and study design are finalised. Methods Reviews of research co-design were systematically identified using a rapid overview of reviews approach (PROSPERO: CRD42019123034). The search strategy encompassed three academic databases, three grey literature databases, and a hand-search of the journal Research Involvement and Engagement . Two reviewers independently conducted the screening and data extraction and resolved disagreements through discussion. Disputes were resolved through discussion with a senior author (PB). One reviewer performed quality assessment. The results were narratively synthesised. Results A total of 26 records (reporting on 23 reviews) met the inclusion criteria. Reviews varied widely in their application of ‘research co-design’ and their application contexts, scope and theoretical foci. The research co-design approaches identified involved interactions with end-users outside of study planning, such as recruitment and dissemination. Activities involved in research co-design included focus groups, interviews and surveys. The effectiveness of research co-design has rarely been evaluated empirically or experimentally; however, qualitative exploration has described the positive and negative outcomes associated with co-design. The research provided many recommendations for conducting research co-design, including training participating end-users in research skills, having regular communication between researchers and end-users, setting clear end-user expectations, and assigning set roles to all parties involved in co-design. Conclusions Research co-design appears to be widely used but seldom described or evaluated in detail. Though it has rarely been tested empirically or experimentally, existing research suggests that it can benefit researchers, practitioners, research processes and research outcomes. Realising the potential of research co-design may require the development of clearer and more consistent terminology, better reporting of the activities involved and better evaluation.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to review the development of engagement research in pursuit of improved sustainability accounting and performance and to identify issues in the further development of this field. In particular, the authors consider the implications of this research for practice, policy and theory following the publication of a special issue on the topic in 2007 in the Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal.Design/methodology/approachThe authors performed a systematic review of the relevant literature in selected accounting journals for the 11 year period 2007–2017 inclusive. The authors identified the methods, topics and theories addressed by researchers and the academic journals that are more likely to publish engagement research.FindingsThe authors found a significant increase in engagement work over the decade since publication of the special issue and a marked increase in the volume and complexity of data collected in studies. There is a marked difference in the openness of different journals to engagement research and the type of engagement research published across accounting journals. Contrary to the argument made by critics of engagement research the authors found that this field of research not only uses theory, but develops theory.Research limitations/implicationsThrough the examination of methods and theories used and topics considered, the authors identify avenues for further research – and the journals likely to be receptive to it.Practical implicationsThe study demonstrates that the collective body of engagement research aimed at improving sustainability accounting and performance has significant potential to inform practice and policy developments with the same aim.Originality/valueThe study examines an emerging approach in an emerging field of research with significant academic, practice and policy potential.

Purpose Patient engagement is influenced by institutional ideologies, professional attitudes and patient readiness to accept new, engaged roles. This article provides an opportunity to consider a new role for patients who are trained to conduct patient experience research using qualitative methods. Methods The emergence of the role of patient engagement researcher was studied using a grounded theory with 21 patients over one-year internship and 125 research participants. Data were collected using tape recordings, field notes and student assignments. These were analyzed using open and selective coding, memoing, categorizing themes. Results Patients' education level (from high school to PhD), cultural background (immigrant experience, seniors), employment (employed full or part time, receiving disability benefits or retired), age (late 30 s—75) and gender (17 women and four men) were diverse. Main categories (emancipating patient experience; qualifying for research; leading sitting down; working data together; seeding change) are organized by the dialectic of co-creation as the roles of patient and researcher merge. A theoretical model is proposed. Discussion The theoretical model provides a glimpse into the process of merging two distinct roles of patient and researcher and in the process unleashes a force for change. Conclusions The emergence of a dialectic from polar opposite roles is difficult to locate in health or other institutions where power differentials exist but there are indications that this new role might become a template for other merged roles in patient-led medical teams.

IntroductionEngagement of relevant stakeholders’ ideas, opinions, and concerns is critical to the success of modern research projects. We have developed a tool to measure stakeholder engagement, called the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST). The purpose of this paper is to present the implementation and uptake of the stakeholder engagement measure REST among research teams, including the assessment of barriers and facilitating factors for use of the new research engagement measure in practice.MethodsIn this implementation study, project team members participated in baseline and follow-up web-based surveys. Web-based interviews were conducted with a subset of project teams that implemented the REST. On the baseline survey, project teams were asked to provide details about up to three ongoing or recently completed projects, were asked if they agreed with compensation for REST completion, and were asked if they would like to send the survey to stakeholders or would prefer our project team to email their project stakeholders. Follow-up surveys contained questions on reactions to implementing REST and results of REST.ResultsProject team members/researchers who completed the baseline survey (n=86) were mostly female (79%) and Non-Hispanic/Latino(a) White (76%). Those who implemented REST were also mostly female (86%) and Non-Hispanic/Latino(a) White (71%), with an average of 11 years in academic research. About 98% of all participants completing the baseline survey had the capacity to survey partners, while 100% of all teams who implemented REST did. A small portion of respondents indicated the time commitment of REST would be a barrier (29% of baseline survey respondents, 10% of those who implemented REST) and indicated workload would be a barrier (31% of baseline survey respondents, 14% of those who implemented REST).DiscussionThe data presented here indicate that REST implementation is feasible in a volunteer group of ongoing research projects.

Background Engaging in research is a critical component of medical education, fostering critical thinking and evidence-based practices. Despite its importance, undergraduate medical students in Pakistan face significant barriers to research engagement. This study explores the challenges hindering their participation in research activities. Methods A qualitative research design was employed, utilizing semi-structured interviews with 45 undergraduate medical and dental students from a public medical university in Pakistan. Participants were purposefully selected to provide diverse perspectives. Data were analyzed thematically to identify recurring barriers and challenges. Results Four key themes emerged: (1) Time constraints, as academic workloads and clinical rotations left limited time for research; (2) Lack of extrinsic motivation, knowledge, and research ability, including insufficient training and limited institutional incentives; (3) Inadequate financial assistance and poor maintenance of research facilities, with students highlighting a lack of funding and outdated infrastructure; and (4) Lack of support from research mentors and training, emphasizing the need for effective mentorship and structured research programs. These barriers collectively hinder students' ability to engage meaningfully in research. Conclusions The study highlights the urgent need for systemic reforms in medical education, including integrating research training into curricula, improving mentorship programs, providing financial and infrastructural support, and incentivizing research participation. Addressing these challenges can foster a culture of inquiry, empowering students to contribute to advancements in medical science.

Background Existing evidence suggests that clinician and organisation engagement in research can improve healthcare performance. With the increase in allied health professional (AHP) research activity, it is imperative for healthcare organisations, clinicians, managers, and leaders to understand research engagement specifically within allied health fields. This systematic review aims to examine the value of research engagement by allied health professionals and organisations on healthcare performance. Methods This systematic review had a two-stage search strategy. Firstly, the papers from a previous systematic review examining the effect of research engagement in healthcare were screened to identify papers published pre-2012. Secondly, a multi-database search was used to conduct a re-focused update of the previous review, focusing specifically on allied health to identify publications from 2012–2021. Studies which examined the value of allied health research engagement on healthcare performance were included. All stages of the review were conducted by two reviewers independently. Each study was assessed using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. A narrative synthesis was completed to analyse the similarities and differences between and within the different study types. Results Twenty-two studies were included, comprising of mixed research designs, of which six were ranked as high importance. The findings indicated that AHP research engagement appears related to positive findings in improvements to processes of care. The review also identified the most common mechanisms which may link research engagement with these improvements. Discussion This landmark systematic review and narrative synthesis suggests value in AHP research engagement in terms of both processes of care and more tentatively, of healthcare outcomes. While caution is required because of the lack of robust research studies, overall the findings support the agenda for growing AHP research. Recommendations are made to improve transparent reporting of AHP research engagement and to contribute essential evidence of the value of AHP research engagement. Trial registration This systematic review protocol was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews, PROSPERO (registration number CRD42021253461 ).

Background Having a research-engaged health and medical workforce is associated with improvements in clinical outcomes for patients. As such, there has been significant government investment internationally to support health care organisations and services to increase staff engagement with research. Objectives This scoping review sought to provide an overview of the literature describing strategies employed to increase research engagement by health care providers and organisations, and to undertake a qualitative analysis to generate a list of research engagement strategies. Methods A scoping review using systematic search strategies was undertaken to locate peer-review publications and grey literature related to research engagement by health care providers and organisations. Research engagement was defined as a ‘deliberate set of intellectual and practical activities undertaken by health care staff and organisations to conduct research’. A database search of electronic records was performed with no limit on publication date. Publications were included regardless of study type (excluding systematic reviews) and categorised as either databased (presenting data or new analysis of existing data) and non-databased (no new data or analyses). Databased publications were further classified according to study type, study design and setting. A qualitative synthesis using a Framework Approach was undertaken with all studies that described a strategy to improve research engagement. Results A total of 152 publications were included in this study with 54% categorised as non-databased. Of the databased articles, the majority (72%) were descriptive studies describing prevalence of correlates of research engagement, 17 (25%) described intervention studies where only two were controlled studies. The following research engagement strategies were identified: i) dual skilled team/staff, ii) resources or physical infrastructure, iii) incentives, iv) leadership support of research, v) education/training, vi) networks, vii) forming partnerships or collaborations and viii) overall leadership structure of entity. Conclusions The literature on research engagement is primarily opinion-based and descriptive in nature. To provide the evidence needed to inform strategies, this needs to progress beyond descriptive to more rigorous well-designed intervention research.

The Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST) examines the level of partner engagement in research studies. This study used mixed methods, including web-based surveys (N = 336), a modified Delphi process (N = 18), and cognitive response interviews (N = 16), with convenience sampling to develop and validate a short version of the REST. We conducted factor analysis and calculated internal consistency for the condensed REST. We validated the condensed REST against the comprehensive REST. All analyses were carried out on two scales (quality and quantity) based on Likert-type response options. We examined convergent validity with other measures theoretically associated with the REST (e.g., the Community Engagement Research Index and the Partnership Self-Assessment Tool). This study produced a 9-item condensed version of the REST. The condensed REST loads on 1 factor, has high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92 for the quantity scale; 0.94 for the quality scale), is significantly correlated (ρ = 0.97; p < 0.001 for both scales) with the comprehensive (32-item) REST, and has negligible, low, and moderate correlation with other measures (e.g., the Partnership Assessment In community-based Research, trust in medical researchers, and the Coalition Self-Assessment Survey). Use of the condensed REST will reduce participant burden and time to complete. This standardized and validated quantitative measure is useful to compare engagement across projects or within a project over time.

Introduction Clinical research is key to advancing healthcare, driving innovation, characterising and addressing both local and global health challenges. Medical students’ participation in research during their education is essential for developing future clinician-scientists. However, in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) including Nigeria, several barriers restrict student involvement in research. In this study, we evaluated the interest, awareness, and research engagement of Nigerian medical students, identify extant barriers, while proposing strategies to enhance participation in clinical research. Methods This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among 691 Nigerian medical students across 42 accredited medical schools using a convenience sampling technique. Participants, aged 18 years and above, were recruited from all academic levels (100–600 levels). A self-administered online questionnaire assessed sociodemographics, research awareness, interest, participation, and barriers to research. Data were analyzed using Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) version 27.0 and descriptive statistics, and chi-square tests were employed to identify associations between demographic factors and research participation, awareness, and engagement. Results The mean (SD) age (in years) of study participants was 21.88 (3.14), and 68.2% were aged 20–25 years with 50.5% females. Most participants (27.2%) were in their fourth year of medical training. Most students reported moderate (53.4%) or low (40.9%) research awareness, and 55.1% had participated in research activities, primarily data collection (31.1%) and literature review (21.8%). While 91.2% of the study participants showed interest in research activities, barriers included time constraints (66.6%), lack of awareness about research opportunities (60.6%), lack of mentorship (59.9%), and financial constraints (52.7%). Chi-square analysis revealed significant associations between academic level, research awareness, engagement and interest ( p  < 0.001) as well as gender and research interest ( p  = 0.04). Conclusion This study highlights the strong interest in research among Nigerian medical students but also reveals notable barriers limiting their engagement. By addressing these challenges through structured mentorship programs, early exposure to research, curricular integration, equitable resource allocation, and regional interventions, institutions can bridge the gap between interest and active research participation. Establishing a supportive research culture is essential for empowering students to contribute meaningfully to scientific innovation and addressing local health challenges.

Background Physiotherapists deliver evidence-based guideline recommended treatments only half of the time to patients with musculoskeletal conditions. Physiotherapists’ behaviour in clinical practice are influenced by many cognitive, social, and environmental factors including time and financial pressures. Many initiatives aimed at improving physiotherapists’ uptake of evidence-based care have failed to appreciate the context involved in clinical decisions and clinical practice. Therefore, we aimed to describe: i) opinions toward evidence; ii) how evidence is accessed; iii) factors influencing evidence access; iv) factors influencing evidence application, for physiotherapists working in regional areas. Methods We used a mixed-methods study with online survey and focus groups. We included registered physiotherapists in the survey and physiotherapists practising in regional New South Wales in the focus groups. Quantitative and qualitative data were used to inform all research objectives. We used eight domains of the Transtheoretical Domains Framework to design survey questions. We analysed quantitative and qualitative data in parallel, then integrated both sources through by developing a matrix while considering the Transtheoretical Domains Framework domains to generate themes. Results Fifty-seven physiotherapists participated in the study (survey only n  = 41; focus group only n  = 8; both survey and focus group n  = 8). Participants reported that evidence was important, but they also considered patient expectations, colleagues’ treatment choices, and business demands in clinical decision making. Physiotherapists reported they access evidence on average 30 minutes or less per week. Competing demands like business administration tasks are barriers to accessing evidence. Participants reported that patient expectations were a major barrier to applying evidence in practice. Environmental and systemic factors, like funding structures or incentives for evidence-based care, and social factors, like lacking or having a culture of accountability and mentorship, were reported as both barriers and enablers to evidence application. Conclusions This study provides context to physiotherapists’ opinion, access, and application of evidence in clinical practice. Physiotherapists’ provision of evidence-based care may be improved by enhancing structural support from workplaces to access and apply evidence and exploring discrepancies between physiotherapists’ perceptions of patient expectations and actual patient expectations.