5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Research capacity-building for clinicians: understanding how the research facilitator role fosters clinicians’ engagement in the research process

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          There is evidence reporting more positive outcomes from research capacity-building (RCB) programmes that include a research facilitator role. Further, it has been suggested that research facilitator roles can be a useful strategy in building the research capacity of healthcare clinicians. However, until now, little attention has been applied to identifying the characteristics of the research facilitator role and how this role contributes to clinicians’ engagement with the research process. The aim of this present study is to explore the characteristics required of the research facilitator role in the educational workshop phase of an RCB programme.

          Methods

          This qualitative study employed an inductive approach and utilized face-to-face interviews to gather data from a purposely selected cohort. Professionally transcribed responses were thematically analysed.

          Results

          The role of the research facilitator emerged as comprising two main themes: (1) facilitating the research process and (2) engaging expert clinicians as novice researchers. Pragmatically, analysis of data led to the development of a table outlining the responsibilities, skills and attributes related to each theme. Conceptually, theme 1 encapsulates the research facilitators’ skills and experience and their role as knowledge brokers and cocreators of knowledge. Theme 2 provides insight into the clinician-centric approach the research facilitators utilized to build and foster relationships and support the clinicians through their research journey.

          Conclusion

          This study reports on the characteristics of the research facilitator role in one phase of an RCB programme in one regional health service district in Australia and explains how the role fosters clinicians’ engagement with the research process. Findings from this study will inform the development of future RCB programmes, which is important considering that clinicians’ increased engagement with the research process is vital for developing a sound evidence base to support decision-making in practice and leads to higher levels of skills and greater ability to perform useful research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map?

            There is confusion and misunderstanding about the concepts of knowledge translation, knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, research utilization, implementation, diffusion, and dissemination. We review the terms and definitions used to describe the concept of moving knowledge into action. We also offer a conceptual framework for thinking about the process and integrate the roles of knowledge creation and knowledge application. The implications of knowledge translation for continuing education in the health professions include the need to base continuing education on the best available knowledge, the use of educational and other transfer strategies that are known to be effective, and the value of learning about planned-action theories to be better able to understand and influence change in practice settings.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period

              Background Choosing a suitable sample size in qualitative research is an area of conceptual debate and practical uncertainty. That sample size principles, guidelines and tools have been developed to enable researchers to set, and justify the acceptability of, their sample size is an indication that the issue constitutes an important marker of the quality of qualitative research. Nevertheless, research shows that sample size sufficiency reporting is often poor, if not absent, across a range of disciplinary fields. Methods A systematic analysis of single-interview-per-participant designs within three health-related journals from the disciplines of psychology, sociology and medicine, over a 15-year period, was conducted to examine whether and how sample sizes were justified and how sample size was characterised and discussed by authors. Data pertinent to sample size were extracted and analysed using qualitative and quantitative analytic techniques. Results Our findings demonstrate that provision of sample size justifications in qualitative health research is limited; is not contingent on the number of interviews; and relates to the journal of publication. Defence of sample size was most frequently supported across all three journals with reference to the principle of saturation and to pragmatic considerations. Qualitative sample sizes were predominantly – and often without justification – characterised as insufficient (i.e., ‘small’) and discussed in the context of study limitations. Sample size insufficiency was seen to threaten the validity and generalizability of studies’ results, with the latter being frequently conceived in nomothetic terms. Conclusions We recommend, firstly, that qualitative health researchers be more transparent about evaluations of their sample size sufficiency, situating these within broader and more encompassing assessments of data adequacy. Secondly, we invite researchers critically to consider how saturation parameters found in prior methodological studies and sample size community norms might best inform, and apply to, their own project and encourage that data adequacy is best appraised with reference to features that are intrinsic to the study at hand. Finally, those reviewing papers have a vital role in supporting and encouraging transparent study-specific reporting. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                t.flenady@cqu.edu.au
                Journal
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Research Policy and Systems
                BioMed Central (London )
                1478-4505
                27 April 2022
                27 April 2022
                2022
                : 20
                : 45
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.1023.0, ISNI 0000 0001 2193 0854, School of Nursing & Midwifery, , Central Queensland University, ; Building 18, Bruce Highway, Rockhampton, 4702 Australia
                [2 ]Central Queensland Hospital and Health Services, Canning Street, Rockhampton, 4701 Australia
                [3 ]GRID grid.1023.0, ISNI 0000 0001 2193 0854, School of Health, Medical & Applied Sciences, , Central Queensland University, ; Building 6, Bruce Highway, Rockhampton, 4701 Australia
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5286-4789
                Article
                849
                10.1186/s12961-022-00849-8
                9044663
                35477479
                46f62dab-cfe1-4ca6-9ec6-f5c567b5c8a4
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 30 December 2021
                : 5 April 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: Department of Health, Queensland
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Health & Social care
                research capacity-building,novice researcher,research facilitator,clinician researcher

                Comments

                Comment on this article