ArticleInternational journal of language & communication disorders
Use of the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour Model and Theoretical Domains Framework to Understand Barriers and Enablers of Research Capacity and Culture for Speech and Language Therapy Staff.
Article in International journal of language & communication disorders. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Use of the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour Model and Theoretical Domains Framework to Understand Barriers and Enablers of Research Capacity and Culture for Speech and Language Therapy Staff.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch Capacity and Culture (RCC) is important for research engagement. Little is known of what speech and language therapy staff perceives to be the barriers or enablers to this at individual, team and organisational levels.
aimsTo identify the barriers and enablers to RCC among speech and language therapy staff, using behaviour change theory as a framework, and to explore their self-reported level of research engagement.
methodsParticipants completed an online survey through purposive sampling. The survey and results were analysed following the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Capability, Opportunity and Motivation (COM-B) model, informed by the RCC Tool. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Percentage responses for 'Yes', 'No' and 'Don't Know' were categorised as barriers, enablers and don't know. Total percentage scores were classified as weak (0%-33.33%), moderate (33.34%-66.66%) or strong (66.67%-100%). Free text responses were analysed using NVivo (v12.0) and a structured categorisation matrix of barrier and enabler. Labelled emotions were the unit of analysis. Finally, participants selected a category reflecting their level of research engagement. OUTCOMES AND
resultsFifty-seven (response rate 73.08%) speech and language therapy staff members from an NHS Trust participated. Barriers and enablers were represented across eight domains of the TDF. At the individual level, knowledge and skill for activities linked to research-related professional standards from the HCPC were strong or moderate enablers, except one. More advanced research activities were rated as strong or moderate level barriers. For motivation, participants' beliefs about the benefit to clinical practice and desire to engage in more research activity (91.23% and 71.93%) were strong enablers. At the team and organisational level, time was a moderate strength barrier. Overall, there was poor knowledge of the availability of support and supervision. For environmental context and resources, library access was a strong enabler (98.25%); all other factors were weak enablers. For the level of research engagement, 52.63% were 'Research Conscious', 24.56% 'Research Participative', 21.05% 'Research Active' and 1.75% unknown. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Barriers and enablers to RCC were identified at all levels of study. Participants demonstrated motivation to engage in research and beliefs in its positive impact on practice. Barriers included a lack of knowledge and skills for more advanced research activities, time, resources, funding and information about the support or opportunities available. Findings provide insight into RCC for speech and language therapy as a profession. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject The Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) of Allied Health Professionals within the United Kingdom has previously been explored using the RCC Tool. However, no study to date has focussed specifically on the perspective of Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) and Speech and Language Therapy Assistants (SLTAs) as a distinct professional group. The COM-B Model and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) have been widely applied in evidence-based healthcare but have not yet been used to examine RCC. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study provides novel insight into the perspectives of speech and language therapy staff working in a UK mental health and disability trust regarding their RCC. By applying a behaviour change lens (COM-B and TDF), the study identifies specific strategies to overcome barriers and enhance enablers to research engagement. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This study highlights the value of using behaviour change theory and frameworks to explore and analyse RCC. While findings are context-specific, they contribute to a broader understanding of RCC within the speech and language therapy profession and may inform targeted approaches to strengthen research engagement across similar settings.
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.