(ID: 95) A rapid review of the literature on interventions to increase healthcare professionals’ research capacity and capability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 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 | 0.026 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".