Best available evidence on Research Capacity Development - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 33
About This Presentation
Title:

Best available evidence on Research Capacity Development

Description:

Ms Jo Cooke, Primary & Social Care Lead, Trent RDSU, ... Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycLit, British Nursing Index, Cochrane Library. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:103
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 34
Provided by: UOS7
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Best available evidence on Research Capacity Development


1
Best available evidence on Research Capacity
Development
  • Mr Andrew Booth, Reader in Evidence Based
    Information Practice, ScHARR,
  • Ms Jo Cooke, Primary Social Care Lead, Trent
    RDSU,
  • Dr Susan Nancarrow, Primary Care Research
    Coordinator, Trent RDSU,
  • Ms Anna Wilkinson, Information Officer, ScHARR

2
ReCap Scoping review to identify the
evidence-base for Research Capacity development
in health and social care
  • Aims
  • To map literature on RCD interventions identify
    extent of research note gaps in evidence make
    recommendations for future research.
  • Objectives
  • To identify and characterise existing literature
  • To develop comprehensive taxonomy of
    interventions and to identify theoretical models
    of RCD
  • To classify interventions to promote RCD
  • To identify which RCD interventions have been
    evaluated
  • To identify and critique measures to assess
    effectiveness
  • To develop recommendations and identify research
    agenda.

3
Scoping Review1
  • a preliminary assessment of the potential size
    and scope of the available research literature2
  • Ref 1 Arksey O'Malley (2005). Scoping Studies
    Towards a Methodological Framework. International
    Journal of Social Research Methodology
    8(1)19-32.
  • Ref 2 EPPICentre. A scoping review of the
    evidence for incentive schemes.. London 2005.

4
Methodology
  • Expert panel for interventions and taxonomy
  • Comprehensive literature searches across RCD and
    specific interventions
  • Production of evidence tables
  • Supplementary search strategies
  • Model construction

5
Comprehensive literature search
  • Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycLit, British Nursing
    Index, Cochrane Library.
  • Social sciences and related databases including
    ASSIA, Agricola, Caredata, Social Sciences
    Citation Index, ERIC, OCLC, ESRC.
  • Catalogues of British Library, National Library
    for Medicine and COPAC combined UK universities
    catalogue.

Total 11,107 references 167 key documents 1.5
yield
6
Total abstracts identified and coded Phase 1
N 6992
QUOROM Flowchart
Rejected at Coding stage n 5008
Further abstracts screened Coded
1984 Phase 2 searches 4115
N 6099
Rejected at abstract stage n 5932
Studies included (167) Models
35 Interventions 132
7
Yield on Interventions (N 132)
  • Training n 26
  • Funding n 7
  • Networks, Infrastructure Collaboration n 11
  • Priority setting n 29
  • Research facilitators
    n 9
  • Mentorship
    n 34
  • Leadership
    n 16
  • Plus
  • Models of RCD
    n 35

8
Supplementary search strategies
  • Government policy and Professional position
    statements
  • Specific named interventions citation searches
    and follow up of references
  • Specific models phrase searches and citation
    searching (Google Scholar, Copernic)
  • Training/skills needs analyses/surveys

9
Model construction
  • Reading and analysis of existing models
  • Classified as Structural, Developmental,
    Hierarchical etcetera
  • Critiqued using a brief checklist
  • Needs/Drivers
  • Structures
  • Interventions/Activities
  • Temporal
  • Outcomes
  • Synthesis into a meta-model

10
Farmer (2002)
11
Cooke, (2005)
12
Final outcomes
Needs Drivers
Intermediate Outcomes
Interventions
Environmental
Organisational
Personal
Time
Needs Assessment
The Research Capacity Prism A Meta-Model
13
Seamless Handover!
14
RCD Interventions
  • Training
  • Funding
  • Mentorship
  • Leadership
  • Facilitation
  • Networks and Collaborations
  • Priority setting

15
Priority setting
  • Papers were selected where priorities were
    developed by consensus views of informed
    participants (known as interpretative assessment
    Lomas et al 2003).
  • Relevant to RCD because its aim is to develop
    applied and relevant research, thereby having an
    impact on services- making more useful
    research.
  • Present in some models of RCD

16
Techniques and methods
  • Formal consensus methods ( NGT, Delphi)
  • Discussion and forums
  • Systematic literature analysis combined with
    expert opinion to identify gaps in knowledge
  • Mixed methods- data collection of different
    sources and triangulation of findings
  • Transparency poor in discussion and workshop
    approaches
  • Developing literature about working with service
    users
  • Action linked to training and support

17
Mentoring
  • "a process whereby an experienced, highly
    regarded person (the mentor) guides another
    individual (the mentee) in the development and
    examination of their own ideas, learning and
    personal and professional development" SCOPME
    report (1998)
  • Issues of reciprocity and the nature of shared
    personal development. Healy and Welchert (1990)
  • Used to promote research and career development

18
Quality of the literature
  • Retrospective studies
  • Identify mentors as one of an number of actors
    within a research environment- more likely to be
    a characteristic of a population rather than an
    intervention
  • Difficult to unpack causal relationships in the
    studies, may reflect the motivation of the
    mentee.
  • Mainly focussed on medical staff and not other
    professional groups

19
ExampleSteiner et al, 2004
  • Examined the association between mentorship and
    subsequent research productivity and career
    development in 139 primary care research fellows.
  • Time conducting research (p .007), published
    more papers (p .003), were more likely to be the
    principal investigator on a grant (p .008), and
    more often provided research mentorship to others
    (72.5 versus 66.7 of those with unsustained
    mentorship p .008).

20
Training
  • Wide ranging to include increasing skills and
    knowledge.
  • Individuals and teams
  • Incorporated into professional training, research
    training and short courses
  • May be related to one particular area of practice
  • May require completion of project.
  • Locations varied academic, health care
    organisations, association with research
    programmes

21
Literature identified
  • 207 papers identfied-26 evaluations studies
    identified
  • Mainly retrospective surveys, two case control
    designs, and one cohort design
  • 2 systematic reviews on critical appraisal
  • Some had other RCD support (stipend/ mentors)

22
Training continued
  • Systematic reviews showed changes in knowledge
    and attitudes
  • Case control design on 1 year research
    methodology course. The course showed changes in
    productivity, activity and commitment, and
    application of research findings to practice
    (Adamsen et al 2003)
  • Long term follow up of research course for cancer
    nurses- showed high levels of career progression-
    but cause or effect?
  • Realistic issues around writing for publication
    workshop

23
Outcomes and RCD
  • Focus of three general areas of change related to
    capacity development
  • Productivity and improvement in desired function
  • Learning, accommodation, and adaptation to
    change. This includes looking for differences in
    attitudes, values and beliefs
  • Engagement, participation and empowerment

24
Issues that impact on outcomes
  • Choice and relevance of outcome measurement
    reflects purpose of RCD
  • Health gain and service improvement
  • The pursuit of knowledge including professional
    knowledge, and to promote intellectual
    excellence.
  • Economic gain and wealth.

25
Outcomes identified in the literature
  • Academic productivity
  • Research activity
  • Return on investment
  • Income generated
  • Sustainability
  • Implementation/ impact of research findings
  • Personal Professional Development
  • Skills and knowledge development
  • Attitudes to research
  • Career progression
  • Job Satisfaction
  • Equity
  • Linkages and networking
  • Infrastructure within organisation

26
Outcomes and interventions
  • Most used outcome across all interventions
    include
  • research productivity, increased knowledge and
    skills, and increased involvement in research/
    research activity.
  • Training, funding and mentorship
  • Career progression
  • Mentorship and leadership
  • Satisfaction and retention rates

27
Outcomes and interventions
  • Networks in addition included
  • network configuration
  • return on investment
  • improved profile
  • enhanced access to research participants.
  • The costs of collaborations/ networks poorly
    explored

28
Methodological issues
  • Intermediate and long tem outcomes
  • Process as outcomes or proxy outcome
  • Different structural levels and outcome
    measurement
  • Few examples explore outcomes and the inter-
    relationship between different structural levels
  • Environmental and contextual factors influence
    the effectiveness
  • Environmental and contextual factors may
    influence what is seen as a pertinent outcome

29
Conclusions
  • RCD is often a series of joined-together, complex
    interventions, not a magic bullet
  • Need for clarity around the purpose of RCD, its
    interventions, and outcomes.
  • Need to explore indicators to show short term
    change that is likely to be sustainable
  • Many of the activities defined as RCD may
    actually be indicators of capacity building,
    rather than the cause (eg research mentorship)

30
Conclusions (cont)
  • RCD philosophies reflect the concepts of
    empowerment and participation, yet most commonly
    used outcome are those around productivity
  • i.e. what gets measured is that which is easy to
    measure

31
Recommendations
  • Use of a consistent framework or approach to RCD
    planning and evaluation
  • Need for a range of outcomes and outcome
    indicators that reflect the purposes of Research
    Capacity
  • Use of methodological approaches that reflect the
    underlying concepts of empowerment and
    participation (eg action research)

32
Recommendations (cont)
  • Need to recognise the stages in RCD at different
    structural levels
  • Greater need for comparative research and studies
    which measure change over a longer time frame

33
Questions?
  • Andrew Booth
  • A.Booth_at_sheffield.ac.uk
  • Jo Cooke
  • J.M.Cooke_at_sheffield.ac.uk
  • Susan Nancarrow
  • S.Nancarrow_at_sheffield.ac.uk
  • Anna Wilkinson
  • A.J.Wilkinson_at_sheffield.ac.uk
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com