Cawley Katie Dooley, Stringer Helen
National Institute for Health and Care Research, UK.
Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2025 Sep-Oct;60(5):e70116. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.70116.
Research 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.
To 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.
Participants 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.
Fifty-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.
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 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.
研究能力与文化（RCC）对于研究参与度很重要。对于言语和语言治疗人员在个人、团队及组织层面认为的这方面的障碍或促进因素，我们了解甚少。
以行为改变理论为框架，确定言语和语言治疗人员中RCC的障碍和促进因素，并探讨他们自我报告的研究参与水平。
通过目的抽样，参与者完成了一项在线调查。调查及结果依据理论领域框架（TDF）和能力、机会与动机（COM-B）模型进行分析，并参考RCC工具。定量数据采用描述性统计进行分析。“是”“否”和“不知道”的百分比回答分别归类为障碍、促进因素和不知道。总百分比得分分为弱（0%-33.33%）、中（33.34%-66.66%）或强（66.67%-100%）。自由文本回答使用NVivo（v12.0）和障碍与促进因素的结构化分类矩阵进行分析。标注的情感是分析单位。最后，参与者选择一个反映其研究参与水平的类别。
来自一家国民保健服务信托机构的57名言语和语言治疗人员参与了调查（回复率73.08%）。TDF的八个领域都体现了障碍和促进因素。在个人层面，与卫生与保健专业委员会（HCPC）研究相关专业标准挂钩的活动的知识和技能，除一项外，都是强或中等促进因素。更高级的研究活动被评为强或中等水平的障碍。关于动机，参与者对临床实践益处的信念以及参与更多研究活动的愿望（分别为91.23%和71.93%）是强促进因素。在团队和组织层面，时间是中等强度的障碍。总体而言，对支持和监督的可获得性了解不足。对于环境背景和资源，图书馆访问是强促进因素（98.25%）；所有其他因素都是弱促进因素。对于研究参与水平，52.63%为“有研究意识”，24.56%为“参与研究”，21.05%为“积极开展研究”，1.75%情况不明。
在研究的各个层面都确定了RCC的障碍和促进因素。参与者表现出参与研究的动机以及对其对实践的积极影响的信念。障碍包括缺乏更高级研究活动的知识和技能、时间以及资源、资金，还有关于可获得的支持或机会的信息。研究结果为言语和语言治疗作为一个专业领域的RCC提供了见解。
关于该主题的已有知识 英国联合健康专业人员的研究能力与文化（RCC）此前已使用RCC工具进行过探索。然而，迄今为止，尚无研究专门聚焦于言语和语言治疗师（SLTs）及言语和语言治疗助理（SLTAs）作为一个独特专业群体的视角。COM-B模型和理论领域框架（TDF）已在循证医疗中广泛应用，但尚未用于研究RCC。本文对现有知识的补充 本研究为在英国心理健康和残疾信托机构工作的言语和语言治疗人员关于其RCC的观点提供了新见解。通过应用行为改变视角（COM-B和TDF），该研究确定了克服障碍和增强研究参与促进因素的具体策略。这项工作的潜在或实际临床意义是什么？本研究强调了使用行为改变理论和框架来探索和分析RCC的价值。虽然研究结果是特定背景下的，但它们有助于更广泛地理解言语和语言治疗专业领域内的RCC，并可能为加强类似环境中研究参与的针对性方法提供参考。
