ArticleBMC health services research2025
The development and validation of the Research for Practice Tool (R4PT) for nursing and midwifery.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTools for assessing research capacity and participation for health professionals have been in use for over a decade with little change. Given the evolving research context emphasising integration into clinical practice, it is time to update or develop tools that reflect current research practices. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a questionnaire designed to examine nurses' and midwives' attitudes, capabilities, participation, and perceived impact of practice-based research.
methodsThe Research for Practice Tool (R4PT) was developed using factors and items identified from an extensive literature review and analysis of existing tools. A modified Delphi method was used to confirm the factors and items. The content validity of the R4PT was determined through reviews from four research experts and six nursing and midwifery clinician researchers. The usability and acceptability of the R4PT was conducted by 12 nurses and midwives. The factors and items of the R4PT were assessed by factor analyses of responses from a target population of 8500 nurses and midwives in a Local Health District in NSW, Australia.
resultsA total of 1,430 participants responded to the R4PT (17%). A seven-factor solution was identified in the exploratory factor analysis. Sixty-six out of 73 items each loaded onto a single factor, explaining 71.5% of the variance. The identified factors were research value and culture (1 and 2), research integration and relevance for practice, research translation, research impact, individual research capability and team research capability. The factors were distinct with the inter-factor correlations less than 0.8. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that all models showed good fit, with non-significant chi-squared tests, CFIs of 1, TLIs > 0.95, RMSEAs of 0 and SRMRs < 0.8. Cronbach's alpha for all factors, except research value and culture 1, showed acceptable consistency (> 0.7).
conclusionsThe R4PT is a valid and reliable means of assessing research participation, aligning with clinical practice and service delivery trends. The culture and value factors (1 and 2) need to be reworked and retested prior to inclusion in subsequent surveys. The R4PT will provide valuable information to inform capacity-building activities, workforce and work practice models that integrate research into practice.
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.