Introduction
Background
Objectives
Methods
Search strategy
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
‘Value’
Variable | Protocol inclusion criteria | Broadened inclusion criteria |
---|---|---|
Population | Studies solely including allied health professionals | Studies including a mixed population of healthcare professionals; encompassing a partial sample of AHPs, stated explicitly or implied by the clinical context. Any of the registered AHPs2 were included (including their teams and organisations) which work within health, social and/or educational settings, as specified in the AHP Research and Innovation Strategy for England 2022 [11] |
Intervention | Studies making explicit reference to engagement in research. This incorporated studies focusing on AHPs and organisations that were directly involved in: (a) agenda setting, (b) conducting research, (c) action research, or (d) research networks where the engagement in research is noted | Studies addressing engagement in research, as well as engagement with research, which also included evidence-based clinical professional develop, evidence-based practice, implementation efforts, critical appraisal, research utilisation, and adoption of research in policy making or clinical guidelines |
Comparison | Studies with or without a comparator | No amendment |
Outcomes | The primary outcome of this review was healthcare performance (processes of care or health outcomes) assessed pre- and post-research engagement | No amendment |
Study type | Effectiveness studies: randomised control trials, repeated measured or quasi-experimental studies. Mixed method studies were considered where an effectiveness component was included in the study and this directly related to the outcome of healthcare performance | Any primary research study type with reference to research engagement |
Research engagement terminology
Indirectness classification
Selection process
Data collection
Data item | Category | Key | Full definition |
---|---|---|---|
Level of study engagement | Organisational level | O | Level of engagement discussed either at organisational or clinician level |
Clinician level | C | ||
Impact | Specific | S | “Refers to those who had engaged in research being more willing and/or able to provide evidence-based care that was related to the specific findings of the research in which they were engaged.” |
Broad | B | “Refers to those who had engaged in research being more willing and/or able to provide evidence-based care that was based on relevant research conducted anywhere and, and that was not related to the specific findings of the research in which they were engaged.” | |
Findings | Positive | + | Where the findings of the paper were positive or negative in relation to the review objective. Studies were classified to be positive if they showed research engagement did improve healthcare performance, and negative if not. e.g. All healthcare performance outcomes reported within the study were positive. With such outcomes being participation in local recommendation development and research involvement from baseline to end of study. When the paper reported mixed findings, this would be a mixture of positive and negative findings |
Negative | - | ||
Mixed | M | ||
Mixed-positive | M + | ||
Mixed-negative | M- | ||
Improvement identified | Processes of care | P | The nature of the healthcare performance improvement identified in the paper |
Health outcomes | HO | ||
Importance | High | 1 | Integrated assessment based on firstly the quality assessment and study type, and secondly the relevancy of population and intervention to the review question |
Low | 2 |
Quality Assessment
Synthesis methods
Subgroup analysis
Results
Study selection
Study characteristics
Country | Clinical Area | Population (P) | Intervention (I) | Study type /methods (S) | Outcomes (healthcare performance) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anaby et al., 2015 [22] | Canada | Paediatrics | Health care professionals (Partial sample of AHP) | Knowledge translation implementation | Qualitative Research | Change in perception; intention for change; change in actual behaviour |
*Bampton et al., 2012 [35] | Australia | Neurology | Physiotherapists | Delivering the therapy programme within an randomised control trial | Mixed Methods | Desire to be involved in another research project; positive and negative aspects of being involved in research |
Bottari et al., 2016 [23] | Canada | Neurology | Occupational therapists | Engagement in a knowledge translation toolkit programme | Qualitative Research | Development of a knowledge implementation toolkit for clinicians to use in practice |
*Christensen et al., 2017 [24] | United States of America | Paediatrics | Physiotherapists | Implementation of a revised knowledge translation programme | Quasi-Experimental Studies | Development and compliance with local guidance; number of academic outputs and dissemination |
Dilworth et al., 2014 [25] | Australia | Oncology | Health care professionals (Partial sample of AHP) | Group clinical supervision for health care professionals trained to deliver a new psychosocial intervention as part of a step wedged randomised control trial | Qualitative Research | Impact of multi-disciplinary team and group clinical supervision on discourse of health professionals delivering psychosocial interventions |
Du Bois et al., 2005 [40] | Germany | Oncology | Health care professionals (Partial sample of AHP) | Hospitals participating in cooperative prospective randomised studies | Cross Sectional Studies | Survival rates; standard treatments received; higher proportions of patients ending up with optimal treatment |
*Fary et al., 2015 [26] | Australia | Musculoskeletal physiotherapy | Physiotherapists | Enrolment in a randomised control trial which involved access to e-learning with follow up in a prospective cohort study following study completion | Randomised Controlled Trials | Self-reported confidence managing patients clinically; clinical vignettes as a proxy to measure processes of care |
Hadley-Barrows et al., 2017 [27] | United Kingdom | Musculoskeletal physiotherapy | Physiotherapists | Research facilitator role | Qualitative Research | Improved services and patient care |
Hébert-Croteau et al., 1999 [36] | Canada | Oncology | Health care professionals (Partial sample of AHP) | Hospitals participating in multi-centre trials | Cross Sectional Studies | Receiving treatment consistent with guidelines; speed of adoption of new interventions |
Kelley et al., 2012 [28] | Ireland | Multiple clinical areas | Occupational Therapists | Participatory action research cycle | Qualitative Research | Confidence and competence with applying research; behaviour change in vocational rehab and evidence based practice; effects on wider staff |
*Kirby et al., 2020 [29] | United Kingdom | Respiratory | Paramedics | Participation in a randomised controlled trial | Mixed Methods | Changes in views and practice, engagement with research, professional identity, and professional competence |
Laliberte et al., 2005 [37] | United States of America | Oncology | Health care professionals (Partial sample of AHP) | Memberships in research networks | Cross Sectional Studies | Compliance with guidelines |
Lawford et al., 2019 [30] | Australia | Musculoskeletal physiotherapy | Physiotherapists | Participation in a randomised controlled trial | Qualitative Research | Willingness to embrace a different service delivery model following engagement |
Majumdar et al., 2008 [38] | United States of America | Cardiology | Health care professionals (Partial sample of AHP) | Hospitals participating in clinical trials | Cross Sectional Studies | Adherence with clinical guidelines |
Missiuna et al., 2013 [31] | Canada | Paediatrics | Occupational Therapists | ‘Partnering 4 Change’ stakeholder collaboration | Qualitative Research | Perceptions, skills and confidence in new ways of working; clinical skills and confidence |
Naismith et al., 2011 [39] | United Kingdom | Oncology | Health care professionals (Partial sample of AHP) | Hospital participated in randomised control trial | Cross Sectional Studies | Development of new programmes; reduced resistance to change; supported evolution of practice; integration into daily departmental practice |
Nielsen et al., 2014 [32] | Australia | Musculoskeletal physiotherapy | Physiotherapists | Training to undertake a validated intervention within a randomised control trial | Qualitative Research | Positive and negative perceptions of engaging in a study; clinical skills and confidence; implementation of the approach into routine clinical practice |
Pons et al., 2010 [42] | Spain | Cardiology | Health care professionals (Partial sample of AHP) | Hospitals voluntarily participating in an external quality initiative | Cross Sectional Studies | Data from mortality and research outputs; measures of publications associated with the hospital; bibliometric measures of research outputs |
Rochon et al., 2011 [41] | Germany | Oncology | Health care professionals (Partial sample of AHP) | Hospital engagement in a study | Cross Sectional Studies | Outcome of newly diagnosed patients; adherence to treatment guidelines |
*Salbach et al., 2010 [8] | Canada | Neurology | Physiotherapists | Self-reported research participation | Cross Sectional Studies | Association between participation in research with research use |
Tilson et al., 2014 [33] | United States of America | Multiple clinical areas | Physiotherapists | Participation in physical therapist-driven Education for Actionable Knowledge Translation (PEAK) programme | Mixed Methods | Impact of participation in project on self-reported evidence-based practice behaviour; integration of research into practice |
*Webster et al., 2021 [34] | United Kingdom | Oncology | Therapeutic radiographers | Participation in a clinical trial quality assurance programme | Mixed Methods | Change in self-reported practice; change in wider clinical practice and departmental processes |
Importance
Study name | Importance | Level of study | Impact | Finding | Improvement identified | Mechanisms identified and extracted (coded) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anaby et al., 2015 [22] | 2 | C | S | + | P | 1.2a, 1.2b, 4.1 |
*Bampton et al., 2012 [35] | 1 | C | S | M + | P | 1.2a, 1.2b, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3 |
Bottari et al., 2016 [23] | 2 | C | S | + | P | 1.2.a, 1.2b, 3, 4.1 |
*Christensen et al., 2017 [24] | 1 | O | S | + | P | 1.1, 1.2a, 2.1, 2.2, 3 |
Dilworth et al., 2014 [25] | 2 | C | B | M + | P | 1.2a, 1.2b |
Du Bois et al., 2005 [40] | 2 | O | B | + | HO | 3,1.2b, 2.1 |
*Fary et al., 2015 [26] | 1 | C | S | + | P | 1.2a; 1.2b; 2.2; 4.3 |
Hadley-Barrows et al., 2017 [27] | 2 | O | B | + | P | 1.2b |
Hébert-Croteau et al., 1999 [36] | 2 | O | S | + | P | 1.2b, 2.1 |
Kelley et al., 2012 [28] | 2 | C/O | S | + | P | 1.2a, 5 |
*Kirby et al., 2020 [29] | 1 | C | S | M + | P | 1.2a |
Laliberte et al., 2005 [37] | 2 | O | B | + | P | 1.2b; 4.1; 4.3 |
Lawford et al., 2019 [30] | 2 | C | S | + | P | 1.2b |
Majumdar et al., 2008 [38] | 2 | O | S | + | P | 1.2b |
Missiuna et al., 2013 [31] | 2 | O | S | + | P | 1.2a, 1.2b, 3, 4.1, 5 |
Naismith et al., 2011 [39] | 2 | O | S | + | P | - |
Nielsen et al., 2014 [32] | 2 | C | S | + | P | 1.2a,1.2b, 2.1 |
Pons et al., 2010 [42] | 2 | O | B | + | HO | - |
Rochon et al., 2011 [41] | 2 | O | B | + | HO | 1.1; 1.2b; 2.1; 3 |
*Salbach et al., 2010 [8] | 1 | C | B | + | P | 1.2a |
Tilson et al., 2014 [33] | 2 | C | B | + | P | 1.2a, 1.2b, 3, 4.1 |
*Webster et al., 2021 [34] | 1 | C | B | M + | P | 1.2a, 1.2b, 3, 4.1 |