Evaluating the perceived impact and legacy of master's degree level research in the allied health professions: a UK-wide cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Post graduate master's degree qualifications are increasingly required to advance allied health profession careers in education, clinical practice, leadership, and research. Successful awards are dependent on completion of a research dissertation project. Despite the high volume of experience gained and research undertaken at this level, the benefits and impact are not well understood. Our study aimed to evaluate the perceived impact and legacy of master's degree training and research on allied health profession practice and research activity. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey design was used to collect data from allied health professionals working in the United Kingdom who had completed a postgraduate master's degree. Participants were recruited voluntarily using social media and clinical interest group advertisement. Data was collected between October and December 2022 and was analysed using descriptive statistics and narrative content analysis. Informed consent was gained, and the study was approved by the university research ethics committee. RESULTS: Eighty-four responses were received from nine allied health professions with paramedics and physiotherapists forming the majority (57%) of respondents. Primary motivation for completion of the master's degree was for clinical career progression (n = 44, 52.4%) and formation of the research dissertation question was predominantly sourced from individual ideas (n = 58, 69%). Formal research output was low with 27.4% (n = 23) of projects published in peer reviewed journal and a third of projects reporting no output or dissemination at all. Perceived impact was rated highest in individual learning outcomes, such as improving confidence and capability in clinical practice and research skills. Ongoing research engagement and activity was high with over two thirds (n = 57, 67.9%) involved in formal research projects. CONCLUSION: The focus of master's degree level research was largely self-generated with the highest perceived impact on individual outcomes rather than broader clinical service and organisation influence. Formal output from master's research was low, but ongoing research engagement and activity was high suggesting master's degree training is an under-recognised source for AHP research capacity building. Future research should investigate the potential benefits of better coordinated and prioritised research at master's degree level on professional and organisational impact.

How "global" is research in early intervention for psychosis? A bibliometric analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Unlike high-income countries (HICs), there are few early intervention services for psychosis in low-and middle-income countries (LAMICs). In HICs, research spurred the growth of such services. Little is known about the state of EIP research in LAMICs, which we address by examining their research output and collaborations vis-à-vis that of HICs. METHODS: We conducted a search in Scopus database for early psychosis publications in scientific journals since 1980. Data from each record, including title, author affiliation, and date, were downloaded. For HIC-LAMIC collaborations, data on first, corresponding and last authors' affiliations, and funding were manually extracted. Descriptive statistics and social network analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Globally, early psychosis publications increased from 24 in 1980 to 1297 in 2022. Of 16,942 included publications, 16.1 % had LAMIC authors. 71.3 % involved authors from a single country (regardless of income level). 21.9 % were collaborations between HICs, 6.6 % between HICs and LAMICs, and 0.2 % among LAMICs. For research conducted in LAMICs and involving HIC-LAMIC collaborations, the first, last, and corresponding authors were LAMIC-based in 71.8 %, 60.7 %, and 63.0 %, respectively. These positions were dominated (80 %) by authors from four LAMICs. 29.4 % of the HIC-LAMIC subset was funded solely by LAMIC funders, predominantly two LAMICs. CONCLUSIONS: LAMICs are starkly underrepresented in the otherwise flourishing body of early psychosis research. They have far fewer collaborations and less funding than HICs. Closing these gaps in LAMICs where most of the world's youth live is imperative to generate the local knowledge needed to strengthen early psychosis services that are known to improve outcomes.

How an international research programme can contribute to improvements in the research environment: the perspective of doctoral students in sub-Saharan Africa.

Background: The Africa Capacity Building Initiative (ACBI) programme aimed to 'strengthen the research and training capacity of higher education institutions and support the development of individual scientists in sub-Saharan Africa through UK-Africa research collaborations' including by funding PhD studentships. We conducted research to understand students' experiences and to see how consortia-based programmes such as ACBI and their own institutions can enhance PhD students' research environment and progress. Methods: In-depth interviews with 35 ACBI-funded PhD students explored their perspectives about how their research and personal development benefitted from belonging to a research consortium. Questionnaires were used to corroborate interview findings. Results: Students recognised that membership of a research consortium provided many benefits compared to less well-resourced peers. By drawing on the programme and consortiums' resources, they were often able to overcome some limitations in their own institution's systems and facilities. Through their consortia they could access a wide range of international expertise and support from mentors and colleagues for their technical and psychosocial needs. Multiple consortia opportunities for engaging with the international scientific community and for networking, gave them confidence and motivation and enhanced their career prospects. Conclusion: Our study and its recommendations highlight how the breadth and diversity of resources available to PhD students through research consortia can be harnessed to facilitate students' progress and to create a supportive and conducive research environment. It also underlines how, through a multi-level approach, consortia can contribute to longer-term improvements in institutional research environments for PhD students.

Harnessing peer mentorship as a tool to turn human resource for health brain drain into brain gain: a case study of a Nigerian peer-mentored research group.

BACKGROUND: Peer mentorship can be a potential tool to reduce the disparities in health research capacity between high- and low- and middle-income countries. This case study describes the potential of peer mentorship to tackle two critical issues: bridging health research capacity of doctors from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and the transformation of human resource for health brain drain into "brain gain". CASE PRESENTATION: In 2021, a virtual peer mentorship group was established by 16 alumni of the University of Benin College of Medical Sciences' 2008 graduating class, residing across three continents. This program aimed to facilitate research collaboration and skill development among colleagues with diverse research experience levels, fostering a supportive environment for career development in research. The group relied heavily on digital technology to carry out its activities due to the different geographical locations of the group members. Led by experienced peer leaders, the group fostered a collaborative learning environment where members leveraged each other's expertise. Within 18 months, we published two research papers in high-impact peer-reviewed global health journals, launched a mixed-methods research study, and conducted training sessions on research design and implementation. Findings from our work were presented at conferences and workshops. However, logistical hurdles, competing priorities, structural constraints, and uneven participation presented challenges. CONCLUSION: The peer mentorship collaboration has achieved some successes so far, and this model can be emulated by other cohorts of medical professionals across LMICs. Despite the group's success at a micro- or individual level, there remain significant structural barriers to research capacity building in LMICs that can only be addressed at the meso- and macro-levels by institutions and government, respectively. A systems-level approach is required to develop and support research capacity building and foster global research collaboration and effectively turn brain drain into brain gain.

Understanding the value of a doctorate for allied health professionals in practice in the UK: a survey.

BACKGROUND: The need to transform the United Kingdom's (UK) delivery of health and care services to better meet population needs and expectations is well-established, as is the critical importance of research and innovation to drive those transformations. Allied health professionals (AHPs) represent a significant proportion of the healthcare workforce. Developing and expanding their skills and capabilities is fundamental to delivering new ways of working. However, career opportunities combining research and practice remain limited. This study explored the perceived utility and value of a doctorate to post-doctoral AHPs and how they experience bringing their research-related capabilities into practice environments. METHODS: With a broadly interpretivist design, a qualitatively oriented cross-sectional survey, with closed and open questions, was developed to enable frequency reporting while focusing on the significance and meaning participants attributed to the topic. Participants were recruited via professional networks and communities of practice. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse closed question responses, while combined framework and thematic analysis was applied to open question responses. RESULTS: Responses were received from 71 post-doctoral AHPs located across all four UK nations. Findings are discussed under four primary themes of utilisation of the doctorate; value of the doctorate; impact on career, and impact on self and support. Reference is also made at appropriate points to descriptive statistics summarising closed question responses. CONCLUSION: The findings clearly articulate variability of experiences amongst post-doctoral AHPs. Some were able to influence team and organisational research cultures, support the development of others and drive service improvement. The challenges, barriers and obstacles encountered by others reflect those that have been acknowledged for many years. Acknowledging them is important, but the conversation must move forward and generate positive action to ensure greater consistency in harnessing the benefits and value-added these practitioners bring. If system-wide transformation is the aim, it is inefficient to leave navigating challenges to individual creativity and tenacity or forward-thinking leaders and organisations. There is an urgent need for system-wide responses to more effectively, consistently and equitably enable career pathways combining research and practice for what is a substantial proportion of the UK healthcare workforce.

Unravelling the complexity of research capacity strengthening for health professionals in low- and middle-income countries: A concept analysis.

AIMS: Research capacity strengthening (RCS) is crucial in enhancing healthcare outcomes, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), which face challenges due to limited resources, unequal access to care and the need for evidence-based decision-making. We seek to move beyond a surface-level understanding of RCS, unearthing the core attributes, the factors that precede its implementation and the transformative outcomes it generates within the LMIC healthcare landscape. DESIGN: This study employs the Walker and Avant approach to concept analysis to comprehensively explore the dimensions and attributes of RCS as it pertains to allied and public health professionals in LMICs, propose empirical referents and suggest an operational definition. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to 27 July 2023, to identify studies on RCS in LMICs. The Walker and Avant approach to concept analysis was selected because it provides a framework for systematically examining and clarifying the meaning and implications of RCS. This method involves a structured process of defining RCS, identifying its attributes, antecedents, consequences and cases, and ultimately providing a clear understanding of its meaning and implications. Identifying empirical referents offers measurable indicators that researchers and policymakers can use to assess the effectiveness of RCS initiatives in LMICs. CONCLUSION: RCS for health professionals in LMICs involves a sustainable process that equips them with essential research skills, fostering the ability to conduct high-quality research and improve healthcare delivery in resource-constrained settings. IMPLICATIONS: RCS aims to empower health professionals to apply evidence-based practices, reduce disparities and enhance the well-being of populations in LMICs. IMPACT: Ultimately, a concept analysis of RCS empowers us to harness the full potential of research to enhance healthcare delivery, improve patient outcomes and advance the well-being of populations worldwide.

Mental Health Nurses' and Allied Health Professionals' Individual Research Capacity and Organizational Research Culture: A Comparative Study.

Introduction: Healthcare professionals have development needs related to their consumption, use, and practice of clinical research. Little is known about these issues in mental health services specifically. Objectives: A survey of healthcare staff working in an NHS Mental Health and Disability Trust in England was conducted to describe research capacity and culture compared with previously reported samples, and to examine subgroup differences. Methods: An online questionnaire was utilized. The main measure was the Research Capacity and Culture tool comprising measures of individual's perceived research skills and of team and organizational research culture. Previous studies using the same measure were systematically identified, and pooled results, weighted by sample size, were calculated. Analyses were descriptive (current sample versus previous results) and inferential (comparisons between demographic and professional groups within the current sample). Results: N = 293 people completed the survey. The median item scores were poorer than those of pooled samples from studies reporting median item scores on 39/51 (76.5%) occasions and poorer than those pooled samples of studies reporting mean item scores on 51/51 (100.0%) occasions. Individual capability for research was in the 'less than adequate' range more than in previous samples (71.4% vs. 42.9%). For team culture items, the proportions were 84.2% vs. 78.9%, while most responses about organizational culture were in the 'adequate' range (55.6% vs. 66.7%). Staff >20 years employment had poorer perceptions of team and organizational culture. Conclusion: Perceptions of individual research capacity and team and organizational culture were poor compared with previous studies, most of which were conducted in non-mental health settings. There is need for development of research capacity and culture in mental health services including opportunities to develop basic research skills through to strategic developments to promote clinical academic careers. There is considerable room for improvement in the way organizations support research and signpost opportunities.

Advancing HIV cure research in low- and middle-income countries requires empowerment of the next generation of scientists.

While low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially in Southern and Eastern Africa, bear the largest burden of the HIV globally, investigators working on the front lines in these regions are leading a limited number of research efforts, particularly related to HIV cure. Conducting HIV cure research in high-burden HIV LIMCs provides an unparalleled opportunity to formulate innovative research strategies, design trials tailored to the local context, evaluate clinical outcomes within key and vulnerable populations, meaningful involvement of stakeholders, and to shape policies in areas where HIV prevention and cure interventions can yield the most significant impact. Further, the high prevalence of infection, with varied HIV strains affecting large diverse populations, creates a unique environment for studies that would not be feasible in any other part of the world. This underscores the critical importance of addressing obstacles to unlock the full potential of research efforts in these regions. In this viewpoint, we identify significant challenges facing early career investigators in LMICs, particularly in Africa, that hinder their full engagement in HIV cure research. Drawing examples from the International AIDS Society's Research-for-Cure Academy, we provide practical recommendations to overcome barriers that include limited access to funding, effective mentors, educational and career development opportunities, coupled with inadequate investment in infrastructure that contribute towards the limited number of investigators from high-burden HIV LIMCs who are spearheading cutting-edge cure research. Addressing these challenges is crucial to empower investigators who possess unique insights and expertise, and who are well positioned to lead HIV cure-related research efforts. We acknowledge and welcome initiatives that promote capacity building and knowledge exchange between early-career investigators in LMICs and their peers and scientific leaders from high-income countries (HICs). Prioritizing investment in global collaboration and partnership will play a pivotal role in empowering the next generation of African scientists and clinicians. To expedite advancements of cure-related strategies that will be effective in high-burden HIV LMICs, we endorse the sustainable expansion of these pivotal initiatives in these regions, to enhance their effectiveness and hasten progress in the pursuit of a global HIV cure.

How can healthcare organisations increase doctors' research engagement? A scoping review.

PURPOSE: Clinician engagement in research has positive impacts for healthcare, but is often difficult for healthcare organisations to support in light of limited resources. This scoping review aimed to describe the literature on health service-administered strategies for increasing research engagement by medical practitioners. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched from 2000 to 2021 and two independent reviewers screened each record for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were that studies sampled medically qualified clinicians; reported empirical data; investigated effectiveness of an intervention in improving research engagement and addressed interventions implemented by an individual health service/hospital. FINDINGS: Of the 11,084 unique records, 257 studies were included. Most (78.2%) studies were conducted in the USA, and were targeted at residents (63.0%). Outcomes were measured in a variety of ways, most commonly publication-related outcomes (77.4%), though many studies used more than one outcome measure (70.4%). Pre-post (38.8%) and post-only (28.7%) study designs were the most common, while those using a contemporaneous control group were uncommon (11.5%). The most commonly reported interventions included Resident Research Programs (RRPs), protected time, mentorship and education programs. Many articles did not report key information needed for data extraction (e.g. sample size). ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This scoping review demonstrated that, despite a large volume of research, issues like poor reporting, infrequent use of robust study designs and heterogeneous outcome measures limited application. The most compelling available evidence pointed to RRPs, protected time and mentorship as effective interventions. Further high-quality evidence is needed to guide healthcare organisations on increasing medical research engagement.

Efficacy of Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (CoBRE) grants to build research capacity in underrepresented states.

Federal funding for research has immediate and long-term economic impact. Since federal research funding is regionally concentrated and not geographically distributed, the benefits are not fully realized in some regions of the country. The Established (previously Experimental) Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) programs at several agencies, for example, the National Science Foundation, and the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) program at the National Institutes of Health were created to increase competitiveness for funding in states with historically low levels of federal funding. The Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (CoBRE) award program is a component of the IDeA program. The CoBRE grants support research core facilities to develop research infrastructure. These grants also support the research projects of junior investigators, under the guidance of mentoring teams of senior investigators, to develop human resources at these institutions. Few studies have assessed the effectiveness of these programs. This study examines the investment and outcomes of the CoBRE grants from 2000 through 2022. The maturation of junior investigators into independently funded principal investigators is comparable to other mentoring programs supported by NIH. The investment in research cores resulted in substantial research productivity, measured by publications. Despite the successes of individual investigators and increased research infrastructure and productivity, the geographic distribution of federal and NIH research dollars has not changed. These results will be informative in consideration of policies designed to enhance the geographic distribution of federal research dollars.

Portfolio analysis of global tobacco control research funding at the National Cancer Institute, 2000-2019.

INTRODUCTION: Research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where the majority of global tobacco users reside, is critical to addressing the global tobacco epidemic. This analysis describes the global tobacco control research portfolio funded by the National Cancer Institute from fiscal years 2000 to 2019. METHODS: We used the National Institutes of Health Query, View, Report database to identify extramural grants relevant to global tobacco control research. Abstracts were analyzed to describe grant characteristics, including topic areas, tobacco products, countries, and regions of focus. Bibliometric and co-authorship network analyses were performed for publications associated with relevant grants. RESULTS: Of the 93 relevant grants with foreign (non-US) involvement, the majority (83.9%) supported research in upper and lower middle-income countries. The majority of grants (86.0%) focused on cigarettes, with a small subset of grants addressing smokeless tobacco, waterpipe use, or other non-cigarette products. Most grants focused on at least one of the six tobacco control policy measures in the World Health Organization MPOWER package; almost half (48.4%) focused on monitoring tobacco use and around one-third (32.3%) focused on offering tobacco cessation treatment, while other MPOWER measures received less attention in the research portfolio. While most of these grants, and the funding initiatives that supported them, emphasized research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), only 3 of 93 grants were awarded directly to LMIC-based institutions. CONCLUSIONS: There is a critical need for research to develop and test strategies to adapt, implement, and scale up evidence-based interventions across diverse LMIC settings. This study identified gaps in research activity that should be addressed to strengthen global tobacco control research capacity.

Partnership-building considerations for implementation science in learning health systems: a case study of the Implementation Science Collaborative in Alberta, Canada.

Introduction: Implementation of health innovations is inherently collaborative, requiring trans-sectoral partnerships between implementation researchers, innovation teams, and implementation practitioners. Implementation science has been shown to improve implementation successes; however, challenges that hinder partnerships to advance implementation science continue to persist. Using a whole-system approach to assess and respond to implementation science partnership barriers may shed light on effective responses. Methods: We conducted a case study of Alberta's learning health system, using semi-structured group and individual interviews to create a nuanced understanding of the considerations required for implementation research collaborations. We interviewed 53 participants representing 21 offices in the health system, academia, professional associations, and government who regularly plan, evaluate, and/or study health system implementation initiatives in Alberta. Using the Partnership Model for Research Capacity Building, we identified current facilitators and challenges for partnerships for conducting and using implementation science, at different levels of Alberta's health-research ecosystem. Results: Alberta's healthcare system is well set up to readily embed intervention effectiveness and efficacy research. Infrastructure was also in place to strengthen implementation practice. However, weaknesses around exchanging knowledge and skills, providing feedback and mentoring, and accommodating diversity affected the ability of both individuals and teams to build implementation science capacity. Without this capacity, teams could not participate in embedded implementation research collaborations. We report the response of the Alberta Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research SUPPORT Unit to these barriers to provide practical guidance on various program options to strengthen individual- and organization-level implementation science capacity. Discussion: This study applied a whole-system approach to assess factors across Alberta's health-research ecosystem, which affect partnerships to advance implementation science. Our findings illustrated that partnership considerations go beyond interpersonal factors and include system-wide considerations. With the results, health organization leaders have (1) a method for assessing organizational capability to readily embed implementation research and (2) a catalog of potential responses to create conditions to readily engage with implementation science in their day-to-day implementation processes.

Strengthening research capacity of early-mid career researchers: Implementation and evaluation of the Excellence in Non-COmmunicable disease REsearch (ENCORE) program.

High-quality training and networking are pivotal for enhancing the research capacity of early- to mid-career researchers in the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases. Beyond building research skills, these professionals gain valuable insights from interdisciplinary mentorship, networking opportunities, and exposure to diverse cultures and health systems. Despite the significance of such initiatives, their implementation remains underexplored. Here, we describe the implementation and evaluation of the Excellence in Non-COommunicable disease REsearch (ENCORE) program, a collaborative initiative between Australia and India that was launched in 2016 and spanned a duration of 3 years. Led by a consortium that included the University of Melbourne and leading Indian research and medical institutions, ENCORE involved 15 faculty members and 20 early-mid career researchers. The program comprised various elements, including face-to-face forums, masterclasses, webinars, a health-technology conference, and roundtable events. ENCORE successfully trained the early-career researchers, resulting in over 30 peer-reviewed articles, 36 conference presentations, and the submission of seven grant applications, three of which received funding. Beyond individual achievements, ENCORE fostered robust research collaboration between Australian and Indian institutions, showcasing its broader impact on strengthening research capacities across borders.

Priorities for research promoting mental health in the south and east of Asia.

Progress in promoting mental health, preventing mental illness, and improving care for people affected by mental illness is unlikely to occur if efforts remain separated from existing public health programs and the principles of public health action. Experts met recently to discuss integrating public health and mental health strategies in the south and east of Asia, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Areas of research identified as high priority were: 1) integrating mental health into perinatal care; 2) providing culturally-adjusted support for carers of people with mental and physical disorders; 3) using digital health technologies for mental health care in areas with limited resources and 4) building local research capacity. Selection of these areas was informed by their relative novelty in the region, ease of implementation, likely widespread benefit, and potential low costs. In this article, we summarise available evidence, highlight gaps and call for collaborations with research centres, leaders and persons with lived experience within and beyond the region.

Evaluating the impact of the supporting the advancement of research skills (STARS) programme on research knowledge, engagement and capacity-building in a health and social care organisation in England.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact a novel education programme - to improve research engagement, awareness, understanding and confidence - had on a diverse health and social care workforce. Barriers and facilitators to engagement were explored together with research capacity-building opportunities and ways to embed a research culture. The programme is entitled 'Supporting The Advancement of Research Skills' (STARS programme); the paper reports findings from a health and social care setting in England, UK. METHODS: A four-level outcome framework guided the approach to evaluation and was further informed by key principles of research capacity development and relevant theory. Quantitative data were collected from learners before and after engagement; these were analysed descriptively. Semi-structured online interviews were conducted with learners and analysed thematically. A purposive sample was achieved to include a diversity in age, gender, health and social care profession, and level of attendance (regular attendees, moderate attendees and non-attenders). RESULTS: The evaluation spanned 18 half-day workshops and 11 seminars delivered by expert educators. 165 (2% of total staff at Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust (MPFT)) staffs booked one or more education sessions; 128 (77%) including Allied Health Professionals (AHPs), psychologists, nursing and midwifery, and social workers attended one or more session. Key themes of engagement with teaching sessions, relevance and impact of training and promoting a research active environment were identified with relevant sub-themes. Positive impacts of training were described in terms of research confidence, intentions, career planning and application of research skills as a direct result of training. Lack of dedicated time for research engagement, work pressures and time commitments required for the programme were key barriers. Facilitators that facilitated engagement are also described. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate the impact that a free, virtual and high-quality research education programme had at individual and organisational levels. The programme is the product of a successful collaboration between health and social care and academic organisations; this provides a useful framework for others to adapt and adopt. Key barriers to attendance and engagement spoke to system-wide challenges that an education programme could not address in the short-term. Potential solutions are discussed in relation to protecting staff time, achieving management buy-in, recognising research champions, and having a clear communication strategy.

Understanding Health Inequalities Research Capacities: Insights and Recommendations From Comparing Two High Income Settings.

Generating evidence on health inequalities (HI) is necessary to raise awareness of these issues, describe and monitor their evolution, analyze their causes, and inform interventions aiming to improve health equity. Yet not all cities and countries have the capacity to produce this type of research. Recent research provides new contextual and causal insights into this research production process, and in-depth understanding on why and how this type of research is produced in certain settings. This article aims to analyze two recent case studies that have uniquely explored this process in two high producers of HI research and high-income country settings to identify learning and distil recommendations, which may be insightful for other settings. Expanding and investing in this line of research is critical, particularly in places with lower HI research output and related capacity, in order to identify key contextual conditions and mechanisms that may enable or hinder this process. This new knowledge could guide the development of new HI research capacity strengthening strategies to foster this research in different settings, worldwide. More understanding is also needed on the relationship between HI research, policy, and action in order to tackle HI.

A national program to advance dementia research in Vietnam.

BACKGROUND: As Vietnam and other low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) experience a rapid increase in the number of people living with dementia, an acute need exists to strengthen research capacity to inform policy, improve care and support, and develop national dementia plans. We describe the development and early outcomes of an National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute on Aging (NIA)-funded national dementia research capacity building program in Vietnam. METHODS: The research capacity building program commenced in 2019 and has three components: (1) Vietnam Alzheimer's and other dementias research Network (VAN), (2) a mentored pilot grant program, and (3) research training, networking, and dissemination activities. The pilot grant program funds Vietnamese researchers for one to two years to conduct research focusing on Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease Related Dementias (AD/ADRD). Grants are reviewed and scored using NIH criteria, and priority is given to pilot grants with policy relevance and potential for future funding. An international pool of high-income country (e.g., United States, Australia, and United Kingdom) mentors has been engaged and mentors paired with each funded project. Training and networking activities include workshops on AD/ADRD research topics and regular meetings in conjunction with Vietnam's annual national dementia/geriatric conferences. Dissemination is facilitated through targeted outreach and the creation of a national network of institutions. RESULTS: Over four years (2019-2023), we received 62 applications, reviewed 58 applications, and funded 21 projects (4-5 per year). Funded investigators were from diverse disciplines and institutions across Vietnam with projects on a range of topics, including biomarkers, prevention, diagnosis, neuropsychological assessment, family caregiver support, dementia education, and clinical trials. A network of 12 leading academic and research institutions nationwide has been created to facilitate dissemination. Six research training workshops have been organized and included presentations from international speakers. Grantees have published or presented their studies at both national and international levels. The mentoring program has helped grantees to build their research skills and expand their research network. CONCLUSION: This research capacity building program is the first of its kind in Vietnam and may serve as a useful model for other LMIC.

Research capacity and culture among hand therapists in Australia: A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Identifying the factors influencing engagement in research capacity and culture (RCC) in hand therapy practice is essential to inform strategies to support contributions to high-quality research and its implementation in clinical practice. However, the RCC of clinicians providing hand therapy services in Australia has not been investigated. PURPOSE: This study aimed to measure RCC among hand therapists in Australia to identify perceived barriers, motivators, and skills related to undertaking research. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: All Australian Hand Therapy Association members were invited to complete the RCC tool, which includes three domains: i) individual, ii) professional group (team), and iii) organization. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two therapists (13.6% response rate) completed the survey. Survey findings indicate that the RCC of hand therapists in Australia is relatively low across all RCC domains, with scores on these items being either moderate or low. The findings from this study suggest that the areas or skills that respondents felt most confident with were more closely aligned to the clinical skills required as evidence-based practitioners, compared to other skills more closely aligned with the clinician-researchers, such as data analysis or writing proposals. CONCLUSIONS: Hand therapists in Australia may not possess the research experience or skills required to confidently complete a range of research-related activities. Future support strategies should focus on improving hand therapist knowledge and confidence regarding common research tasks and provide funding and mentoring for additional hand therapist clinician-researcher roles.

The health service perspective on determinants of success in allied health student research project collaborations: a qualitative study guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

BACKGROUND: A research culture in health care organisations is associated with improved healthcare performance. Allied health (AH) students undertake research training as part of their professional degree qualifications. This may include participation in research projects, sometimes undertaken in association with health services. Co-supervision of these projects by health service staff provides research capacity building opportunities and staff-centred outcomes for the individuals involved, as well as improvements in clinical knowledge and practice within the local area. Also, publications from these projects contribute to the wider evidence base. Identification of barriers and facilitators to engagement in, and conduct of, these projects may optimise systems for improved health service outcomes. METHODS: This formative evaluation used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide analysis of qualitative data obtained from semi-structured interviews with health service-employed allied health professionals, including clinicians and research fellows, who had supervised students on clinical-related research placements within the previous five years. RESULTS: Eleven AH clinicians described 18 collaborative projects with 24 students from five AH disciplines across four universities. Three health service-employed AH research fellows described their involvement in these and other student research projects. Twenty key determinant constructs were identified and mapped across all five CFIR domains. Facilitators included health service cosmopolitanism, project adaptability and implementation climate (compatibility). Health service-employed research fellows provided readiness for implementation and a facilitator for project execution. The main barriers identified were cost to staff in workload and personal time and aspects related to project complexity. Differing student characteristics affected the relative advantage of collaborative projects in positive and negative manners. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the facilitators and barriers to the conduct of collaborative AH student research projects. Addressing these determinants when establishing each new project may enable health services to optimise communication, role delineation and project success, and thus ultimately, healthcare performance and patient care.

Autism research capacity building in Northern Mexico: Preliminary evaluation of an ongoing process.

LAY ABSTRACT: To inform improvement of care and public policy, quality research is required. Conducting research projects requires skills and infrastructure. Research capacity building is the process by which individuals and organizations develop greater ability to conduct useful research. However, in the scientific community, research quality and productivity measures are often focused on long-term products, such as publications or grants awarded. Those measures are not helpful when measuring initial stages of research, a common situation in low- and middle-income countries. We used a six-principle framework designed by J. Cooke to assess the progress of an autism research collaborative in northern Mexico. We established 64 criteria across the six principles, and rated them as Not Started, In Progress, or Achieved, based on narratives and process documentation collected for this purpose. Ratings were established for the Years 2018, 2020, and 2022. The principles with the highest Achieved rates were "Linkages, collaborations, and partnerships" (90%), and "Infrastructure" (Principle 6, 70%). Cooke's research capacity building framework is a useful way to monitor progress of research capacity building and contribute to harmonious development of relevant principles at different levels.