ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2026
Factors Affecting Nurses, Midwives and Allied Health Professionals' Ability to Engage With Research.
Article in Journal of clinical nursing, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo explore factors affecting research engagement among Nurses, Midwives and Allied Health Professionals (NMAHPs) in England by examining perceptions of research capacity at organisational, team and individual levels.
introductionResearch engagement strongly correlates with improved care quality. However, NMAHPs face persistent participation barriers compared to medical colleagues, limiting the development of a multi-professional research workforce.
designNational descriptive cross-sectional study using a validated survey tool.
methodsData from NMAHPs across England were collected using the validated Research Capacity and Culture tool. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and inferentially; qualitative free-text responses were evaluated thematically.
resultsPerceived capacity was moderate organisationally and in teams. Organisational strengths included promoting evidence-based practice (68.7%) and leadership support (61.6%). Teams offered moderate research opportunities (58.6%) but limited mentorship (47.9%). Individually, participants showed competence in literature review (69.5%) and data collection (63.4%) but required support for funding acquisition (43.8%) and publication (50.0%). Qualitatively, research was a highly valued aspect of professional identity, though participation is severely constrained by structural conditions, including extreme resource pressures, unclear career pathways, and professional inequality.
conclusionsDespite strong motivation for evidence-based practice, significant structural barriers restrict NMAHP research engagement. Strengthening capacity demands coordinated action across clinical and policy systems, ensuring equitable access to protected time, mentorship, and vital research infrastructure. RELEVANCE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Supporting NMAHPs in research enhances evidence-informed decisions and service innovation. Embedding research into everyday clinical work, rather than viewing it as optional, builds a sustainable multi-professional culture. IMPACT: This survey pinpoints the specific factors most strongly influencing NMAHP research engagement. It provides healthcare leaders actionable insights to build sustainable research infrastructure and inclusive clinical academic pathways. REPORTING
methodThis study adhered to STROBE guidelines for cross-sectional research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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.