Research capacity and culture within Allied Health Professions in the United Kingdom: A scoping review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Allied Health Professions workforce comprises a significantly large group of National Health Service workers. There is great potential for harnessing the benefits of research in healthcare by this workforce group. A strategy for research and innovation was published to support the set ambitions of achieving a 0.9% increase in Allied Health Professions, Nursing and Midwifery research capacity by 2030. This article provides an assessment of the current knowledge of Allied Health Professions’ research capacity and culture within the United Kingdom through a systematic review of the available literature. Methods A scoping review was conducted between September 2022 and May 2023. The databases used were Ebsco’s CINAHL Complete, Medline and SportDiscus, Pubmed and APA PsycInfo hosted by Proquest. Covidence was used to identify 80 articles, covering a 39-year period. The articles included any of the 14 Allied Health Professions as identified within the United Kingdom and were focused on research capacity and culture issues. Results The studies were largely quantitative (51%) followed by qualitative (27%) and mixed methods (19%). Commonly used validated tools in the studies are the Research Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of research survey, the BARRIERS scale, the Research Capacity and Culture tool, the Edmonton Research Orientation survey, the New World Kirkpatrick Model, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and the Victor tool. Enablers to research identified revolved around the presence of collaborations/links/networks, research support, research training/skills development, protected research time, personal factors (motivation/interest/desire/commitment), research communication and research opportunities. Reported barriers had issues to do with lack of protected time, lack of research skills/knowledge/experience, lack of support, workload/work pressures, lack of funds, sustainable research pathways, staffing, nature of working (part-time/inflexible), not being fully prepared for research from college and personal factors. Professions included in most articles were Occupational Therapy, Physiotherapy, Radiography, Speech and Language Therapy, Dietetics and Podiatry. Conclusion This scoping review highlighted a variety of ways that have been utilised to explore research capacity and culture within Allied Health Professions in the United Kingdom. However, there is room to further develop research capacity and culture within this workforce group if the set target is to be realised.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.181 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".