Research culture in allied health: a systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research evidence is required to guide optimal allied health practice and inform policymakers in primary health care. Factors that influence a positive research culture are not fully understood, and nor is the impact of a positive research culture on allied health professionals. The aim of this systematic review was to identify factors that affect allied health research culture and capacity. An extensive search of 11 databases was conducted in June 2015. Studies were included if they were published in English, had full-text availability and reported research findings relating to allied health professions. Study quality was evaluated using the McMaster Critical Review Forms. Fifteen studies were eligible for inclusion. A meta-analysis was not performed because of heterogeneity between studies. Allied health professionals perceive that their individual research skills are lower in comparison to their teams and organisation. Motivators for conducting research for allied health professionals include developing skills, increasing job satisfaction and career advancement. Barriers include a lack of time, limited research skills and other work roles taking priority. Multilayered strategies, such as collaborations with external partners and developing research leadership positions, aimed at addressing barriers and enablers, are important to enhance allied health research culture and capacity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.075 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it