From: Frameworks for embedding a research culture in allied health practice: a rapid review
Author,Year | Title | Framework or Model | Study location/Healthcare domain | Participants | Framework development/Study type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brennan, 2017 [54] | Development and validation of SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research): a measure of policymakers’ capacity to engage with and use research | SEER Framework | Australia, Health policy-makers | Investigator team (researchers, policy-makers) 150/272 respondents, 57/105 respondents, 9 policy agencies | Item generation and refinement, Literature review and expert consensus survey, Validity and internal consistency survey, Test-retest reliability |
Cooke, 2005 [26] | A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care | Cooke Framework | United Kingdom, Primary care | Not reported | Literature review and expert opinion |
Farmer, 2002 [19] | A conceptual model for capacity building in Australian primary health care research | ‘Whole system’ Framework | Australia, General practitioners | Not reported | Expert opinion |
Fleisher, 2007 [55] | The NCI’s Cancer Information Service’s Research Continuum Framework: integrating research into cancer education practice | CIS Research Continuum Framework | United States, National Cancer Information Service | Not reported | Not reported |
Golenko, 2012 [25] | A thematic analysis of the role of the organisation in building allied health research capacity: a senior managers’ perspective | Research Capacity-Building Model | Australia, Allied health managers | Nine semi-structured interviews | Qualitative study with thematic analysis |
Gullick, 2016 [56] | Building research capacity and productivity among advanced practice nurses: an evaluation of the Community of Practice model | Wenger’s Community of Practice Model | Australia, Nursing | Six focus groups (25 participants: 2 nurse practitioners; 23 clinical nurse consultants) | Qualitative study with thematic analysis |
Holden, 2012 [27] | Validation of the research capacity and culture (RCC) tool: measuring RCC at individual, team and organisation levels | Research Capacity and Culture Tool | Australia, Primary care | Allied health assistants = 3; Dieticians = 10; Occupational therapists = 24; Physiotherapists = 29; Speech pathologists = 10; Social workers = 20; Psychologists = 6; Doctors, nurses = 14 | Quantitative methods with factor analysis, test-retest reliability, intra-class correlation |
Hulcombe, 2014 [28] | An approach to building research capacity for health practitioners in a public health environment: an organisational perspective | Research Capacity and Culture Building Framework | Australia, Allied health clinicians | Medical laboratory assistants; Nutrition and dietetics; Occupational therapy; Oral health therapists; Physiotherapy; Podiatry; Psychology; Public health practitioners; Radiation therapy | Literature review, stakeholder consultations, expert opinion; Development of health practitioners (Queensland Health) certified agreement (No. 2) (HPEB2) – CA/2011/106 |
McCance, 2006 [57] | Developing a best practice framework to benchmark research and development activity in nursing and midwifery | Research and Development Best Practice Framework | United Kingdom, Nursing | Not reported | Literature review that included 52 papers and generated six best practice statements |
Makkar, 2016 [58] | The development of ORACLe: a measure of an organisation’s capacity to engage in evidence-informed health policy | ORACLe Framework | Australia, Health policy-makers | Nine semi-structured interviews – item content; Six semi-structured interviews – item wording | Literature review to generate items; Qualitative methods with content analysis for key domains; Quantitative methods to develop a scoring system and psychometric testing (n = 24) |
Makkar, 2016 [59] | The development of SAGE: A tool to evaluate how policymakers’ engage with and use research in health policymaking | SAGE Framework | Australia, Health policy-makers | 65 interviews with policy-makers | Literature review and expert consultation to develop item content and wording; Qualitative methods but not reported; Quantitative methods to develop a scoring system and psychometric testing |
Redman, 2015 [22] | The SPIRIT Action Framework: A structured approach to selecting and testing strategies to increase the use of research in policy | SPIRIT Action Framework | Australia, Health policy-makers | Nine semi-structured interviews with policy-makers – item content | Literature review including 106 papers from which items were generated; Qualitative methods with content analysis and a review of framework domains; Expert opinion |
Ried, 2006 [60] | Setting directions for capacity building in primary health care: a survey of a research network | SARNet Framework | Australia, Primary healthcare | Allied health = 26General practitioners = 19Health services = 11Nurses = 9Academics = 9Hospital doctors = 7 | Qualitative and quantitative methods with unreported design and methods |
Whitworth, 2012 [30] | Enhancing research capacity across healthcare and higher education sectors: development and evaluation of an integrated model | Partnership Model | United Kingdom, Speech therapists | Speech and language therapists | Expert opinion from senior managers; Research ideas were solicited from practitioners; Qualitative methods to explore experiences of the research collaboration |
NSW Health, 2001 [23] | A Framework for Building Capacity to Improve Health | RCB Framework | Australia, Primary healthcare | Not reported | Expert opinion |
Hotte, 2015 [24] | Building Research Capacity within the British Columbia Health Authorities: health services and policy research support network | Health Authority Capacity-Building Program | Canada, Public health | Not reported | Literature review and identification of six themes |