Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32912231›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Developing a consolidated research framework for clinical allied health professionals practising in the UK.

Jennifer Harris, Kate Grafton, Jo Cooke

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Research priority setting in UK podiatric surgery.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Representations of Research among Newly Graduated Paramedical Professionals: A Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer HarrisPaediatric MSK/Orthopaedics, Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Calow, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, S44 5BL, UK. jenniferharris@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2289-4634
Kate GraftonCouncil for Allied Health Professions in Research (CAHPR) Strategy Committee, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln, LN6 7TS, UK.
Jo CookeSchool for Health Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TG, UK.
Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Lincoln · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

CAHPR 000National Institute for Health Research IS-CLA-0113-10020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAllied Health Professionals (AHPs) form a significant part of the healthcare workforce and have great potential to improve services through research and research-informed practice. However, there is a lack of tradition in research embedded in practice in these professional groups. Barriers include clinical caseload pressures, a lack of sustainable training and consequent lack of confidence in practitioners. Practice managers are ill-equipped to monitor and guide staff research development. The modern healthcare system is a multi-disciplinary environment focused on the needs of the patient. A common framework across all AHP disciplines, offering equality in research knowledge and skills and shared language, might be helpful in planning and developing clinical career pathways. Our aim is to develop a consolidated research framework to help AHPs to plan and guide research activity throughout their career.

methodsThe study was conducted in three phases. Phase one identified existing AHP research frameworks (AHPRF) through expert consultations and literature searches. Phase two involved framework analysis of the AHPRFs to develop a single consolidated framework. Phase three included a workshop with experts to validate and adapt the framework for practice.

resultsNineteen AHPRFs were identified. A consolidated framework was shaped by analysis of the AHPRFs resulting in a consolidated framework of eight sections, each containing a series of statements. Each section relates to an analytic theme within the framework analysis, and the statements were based on sub-categories of themes. The final framework was further shaped by the phase three workshop into a set of 'stem' statements that can be adapted to reflect different levels of expertise and the inclusion of a set of guiding principles developed through expert consultation.

conclusionThe consolidated framework was entitled 'Shaping Better Practice Through Research: A Practitioner Framework' by stakeholders, thus emphasising its ambition to embed research activity into practice. It instigates a new perspective within AHP research by offering practitioners and managers a tool that can be applied across public, private, and voluntary settings for AHPs in all disciplines. Its ambition is to develop capacity in the AHPs that can undertake research to improve services and the health of service users.

Indexed as

Allied Health PersonnelBiomedical ResearchStaff DevelopmentHumansProfessional RoleUnited KingdomAllied health professionalApplied research workforceResearch capacityResearch competencies

Identifiers

PMID32912231
PMCPMC7488424
OpenAlexW3085115199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.