Matus Janine, Wenke Rachel, Hughes Ian, Mickan Sharon
Allied Health, Gold Coast Health, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia,
School of Allied Health Sciences, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2019 Jan 14;12:83-96. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S178696. eCollection 2019.
The first aim of this study was to evaluate the current research capacity and culture among allied health professionals (AHPs) working in a large regional health service. The second aim of this study was to undertake principal component analyses (PCAs) to determine key components influencing our research capacity and culture.
As part of a cross-sectional observational study, the Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) tool was administered to AHPs working in Gold Coast Health to measure self-reported research capacity and culture across Organization, Team, and Individual domains, including barriers to and motivators for performing research. An exploratory PCA was performed to identify key components influencing research capacity and culture in each of the three domains, and the results were compared with the findings of a previous study performed in a large metropolitan health district.
This study found moderate levels of research capacity and culture across all domains, with higher scores (median, IQR) reported for the Organization domain (7,5-8) compared to the Team (6,3-8) and Individual domains (5,2-7). Two components were identified in each domain. Components in the Organization domain included "research culture" and "research infrastructure"; components in the Team domain included "valuing and sharing research" and "supporting research"; and components in the Individual domain included "skills for conducting research" and "skills for searching and critiquing the literature". These components were found to be highly correlated with each other, with correlations between components within each domain ranging from 0.459 to 0.702.
The results of this study reinforce the need for an integrated "whole of system" approach to research capacity building. Ongoing investment in tailored support and infrastructure is required to maintain current areas of strengths and build on identified areas of weakness at the level of organizations, teams, and individual AHPs, and consideration should also be given as to how support across these three levels is integrated.
本研究的首要目标是评估在一家大型区域卫生服务机构工作的专职医疗人员（AHPs）当前的研究能力和文化氛围。本研究的第二个目标是进行主成分分析（PCA），以确定影响我们研究能力和文化氛围的关键因素。
作为一项横断面观察性研究的一部分，对在黄金海岸卫生服务机构工作的专职医疗人员使用研究能力与文化（RCC）工具，以衡量在组织、团队和个人领域自我报告的研究能力和文化氛围，包括开展研究的障碍和动机。进行探索性主成分分析，以确定在这三个领域中影响研究能力和文化氛围的关键因素，并将结果与之前在一个大型都市卫生区进行的研究结果进行比较。
本研究发现所有领域的研究能力和文化氛围处于中等水平，与团队领域（6.3 - 8）和个人领域（5.2 - 7）相比，组织领域报告的得分更高（中位数，四分位距），为（7.5 - 8）。每个领域确定了两个因素。组织领域的因素包括“研究文化”和“研究基础设施”；团队领域的因素包括“重视和分享研究”和“支持研究”；个人领域的因素包括“开展研究的技能”和“检索及批判性评价文献的技能”。发现这些因素之间高度相关，每个领域内因素之间的相关性在0.459至0.702之间。
本研究结果强化了采用综合“全系统”方法进行研究能力建设的必要性。需要持续投入量身定制的支持和基础设施，以维持当前的优势领域，并在组织、团队和个体专职医疗人员层面弥补已确定的薄弱领域，同时还应考虑如何整合这三个层面的支持。
