(ID: 95) A rapid review of the literature on interventions to increase healthcare professionals’ research capacity and capability
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Research is essential for enhancing pharmacy services and facilitating evidence-based healthcare [1]. However, a recent survey of United Kingdom (UK)-based pharmacy professionals reported that a minority of the pharmacy workforce is actively engaged in research, and the profession is underrepresented in the uptake of research training opportunities [1]. Acknowledging that pharmacy can learn from other professions [1], understanding the components of interventions that support healthcare professionals to engage in research can help design effective strategies for pharmacy staff. Aim To undertake a rapid review of the literature to identify interventions to support research capability and capacity of the pharmacy, Allied Health Professionals (AHPs), nursing and midwifery workforce. Methodology This rapid review followed Cochrane guidance [2] and was reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [3]. MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed databases were searched using keywords such as ‘research capacity’, ‘research capability’, ‘intervention’ and ‘strategy’. Included articles described any intervention to support research-related activity involving AHPs, pharmacy, nurses or midwives, reporting a demonstrable increase in research-related activity. Articles published between January 2014 (corresponding with publication of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Foundation Framework) and 29th August 2024 with full-text in English were included. All articles were screened at title and abstract, and full-text stages (GR) with ten percent independently verified (SB) [4]. Reference lists of included articles were checked. No quality assessment was conducted. Data were extracted and analysed using a narrative synthesis approach to identify commonalities across studies [5]. Ethical approval was not required due to the rapid review methodology. Results Searches returned 629 articles, leaving 281 after deduplication. Dual screening demonstrated almost perfect (title/abstract κ0.84) and acceptable (full-text κ0.53) agreement, with all discrepancies resolved by discussion. Following full-text screening seven studies were included. Two studies only involved nurses, one included nurses and midwives. Three included nurses and AHPs, and one included nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals. Three studies were conducted in the UK, with others from Australia, Canada, Ireland and Thailand. Nine core elements to support research capacity and capability were identified: Strategy; Funding; Partnership with Higher Education Institutions; Physical space and resources; Networking; Mentorship/ Support/Supervision; Training; Identity/core part of role and Protected time. One study included all nine core elements; all interventions included some mentorship or supervision. It was not possible to establish associations or relationships between the number of elements included and outcomes, due to the heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures. Discussion This rapid review examined global interventions within the aforementioned professions reporting increased research activity. The findings highlight the importance of including multiple elements in an intervention to effectively build research capacity and capability. Limitations of this rapid review were that searches were confined to three databases and, due to resource limitations, only 10% of the articles were dual-screened; however, there was good level of consistency between reviewers. Future interventions to support the capacity and capability of the pharmacy, AHP, nursing and midwifery workforce should consider all nine identified elements. Given that only one paper included the pharmacy workforce, further research is needed to develop interventions to support research across the profession.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,026 | 0,069 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».