ArticleBMC health services research2025
Demonstrating impact of allied health professional participation in the NIHR Associate Principal Investigator scheme.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionResearch impact is defined as an effect, change or benefit to the wider society or services beyond academia. Measuring impact demonstrates benefit and value for money of publicly-funded research. This study evaluates differing levels of impact associated with completion of the National Institute for Health and Care Research Associate Principal Investigator (PI) scheme on SIP SMART2 (Swallowing Intervention Package - Self Monitoring, Assessment & Rehabilitation Training 2); cluster-randomised multi-centre phase II trial with a focus on Prehabilitation of swallowing in head and neck cancer.
methodsData was acquired using two qualitative methods: Reflective virtual discussion group and documentary evidence based on the individual portfolios/checklists of eight accredited Associate PIs. Framework analysis and the evidence of impact model was employed for analysis.
resultsHigh level impact was identified on the micro level, with evidence of individual learning and sense of pride in becoming an accredited Associate PI. Medium to high level impact was found at the meso level including taking a leading role in research delivery within own organisations and raising professional profiles amongst the wider team. There were limited examples directly demonstrating macro level impact.
conclusionThe Associate PI scheme provides opportunities for professional groups that otherwise might not be involved in clinical trials, promoting equality and inclusiveness with benefits across multiple levels of impact. The current checklist of activities is designed to demonstrate competence in clinical trial delivery and may not currently capture the wider benefits and impact of the scheme. These could be better captured with some additions to the checklist including follow-up on potential impacts accrued beyond the 6-month timefame.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.